williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (08/08/85)
Rich: The analogy to unicorns is not a valid one. You are presuming that there doesn't exist something that would fit the descriptive name. For unicorns, this happens to be true. For free will, you have only been able to argue that the universe is essentially deterministic, which may or may not be the actual case. 1) Will implies a selection or a choice 2) Free implies that the choice is arbitrary 3) Natural selection is the process of determining the optimal alternative. This implies that there exists a best choice for everything in your deterministic universe. The optimal alternative will eventually be arrived at through painstaking process. We have reason to believe that this is what evolution is. OK, so let's say that the available evidence is highly in favor of the deterministic universe. For the moment I will concede this to you, and say that you are probably right. OK, so let's say that Natural selection does not have much freedom, seeing as it has to, by definition, have to make the optimal choice, of which there is only one. Being the product of natural selection, our physical makeups are more or less determined by the laws of evolution. Does this sound OK so far? Because nature is forced to make the best selection, this is the basis for stating that freedom doesn't exist. Our actions are determined by our history going back to the beginning of time. We are faced with one problem, however, that being that humans do not always make the best choice. Our physical makeup does not allow us to fully comprehend the consequences of our decisions. We often make mistakes. So then, free will implies a perception that a choice may be regarded as arbitrary. Although there does exist an optimal choice, it is unknown, and furthermore, unknowable. Free will therefore implies the ability to learn from mistakes. What may appear to be an arbitrary choice will later turn out to be either more optimal or less optimal. I will further state that because learning is intrinsically a trial and error process, free will is necessarily a requirement for intelligence. It manifests itself in one's perception that a choice of alternatives appears to be completely arbitrary. You could argue that free will is a figment of the imagination, and you would be right, but it does exist, as a figment of the imagination. It can thereby be stated that free will is a phenomenon that occurs within intelligent beings. It describes an ability to perform trial and error experiments on what appear to be arbitrary alternatives. Now, can you suggest anything better to describe this phenomenon, or are you going to concede that this term is indeed useful. I know it sounds like a loaded question, and it is. I fail to see any other alternative. Before you go off and start dissecting an argument based on a figment of the imagination, remember that " will " is a human characteristic, and that " free will " should also describe a human characteristic. A figment of the imagination should be recognized as a valid entity within this context. ( context itself is a figment of the imagination ) I don't think this will be as easy to argue around, not to say that you won't attempt to anyway. John.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/09/85)
> The analogy to unicorns is not a valid one. You are > presuming that there doesn't exist something that would fit the > descriptive name. For unicorns, this happens to be true. For free > will, you have only been able to argue that the universe is > essentially deterministic, which may or may not be the actual > case. [WILLIAMS] On the contrary, it's a perfectly valid analogy because the subject of the words is irrelevant to the analogy. If you find that something you have defined, some word, does not represent a thing that exists (e.g., some mythical creature/phenomenon), you can't just change the definition to mean something else on the fly just because you feel like it, just because you WANT a world in which centaurs, or unicorns, or free wills, exist. > 1) Will implies a selection or a choice > 2) Free implies that the choice is arbitrary > 3) Natural selection is the process of determining the optimal > alternative. > This implies that there exists a best choice for > everything in your deterministic universe. Hardly. Choice is not a straight line ruler. It is more like an incredibly complex lattice, where two very different choices of very different values may not be quantifiably "better" or "worse" than others. > OK, so let's say that Natural selection does not have > much freedom, seeing as it has to, by definition, have to make > the optimal choice, of which there is only one. Being the product > of natural selection, our physical makeups are more or less > determined by the laws of evolution. > > Does this sound OK so far? No. Because no one said that natural selection HAD to result in the "best" or "optimal" result. It simply results in its result. What determines this result? All the circumstances and events of the surrounding universe. Even if you were able to isolate, say, the solar system as a "closed system", do you have any idea how complex the "predictive equations" would be to "determine" what *will* happen on a reasonably large scale? This has nothing to do with optimality. > Because nature is forced to make the best selection, this > is the basis for stating that freedom doesn't exist. Who said that nature was "forced" to do anything. Nature is just a natural flow, and a very complex one at that. > Our actions are determined by our history going back to the beginning of > time. OK, so... > We are faced with one problem, however, that being that > humans do not always make the best choice. Our physical makeup > does not allow us to fully comprehend the consequences of our > decisions. We often make mistakes. Nature makes "mistakes", too. "Mistakes" are only in the eye of the mistaker, they are evaluated as mistakes because of the negative impact they have. My mistake (dropping a hundred dollar bill) might be your good fortune. > So then, free will implies a perception that a choice may > be regarded as arbitrary. Although there does exist an optimal > choice, it is unknown, and furthermore, unknowable. 1) There cannot be an "optimal" choice in all situations. 2) Yes, free will is a "perception" that a choice is made "freely". We also perceive that a circle when viewed at an angle is an oval. We also perceive incorrectly in numerous optical illusions. Free will is just that, sort of an internal optical illusion. > Free will therefore implies the ability to learn from > mistakes. What may appear to be an arbitrary choice will later > turn out to be either more optimal or less optimal. I will > further state that because learning is intrinsically a trial and > error process, free will is necessarily a requirement for > intelligence. It manifests itself in one's perception that a > choice of alternatives appears to be completely arbitrary. You've just "pulled a Paul Torek", you just took the term "free will" and applied it to a process that has nothing to do with "free will", and sort of claimed "thus we have free will". This is close to what Paul and I have called "rational-evaluative analysis". > You could argue that free will is a figment of the > imagination, and you would be right, but it does exist, as a > figment of the imagination. Figments of the imagination exist only within the individual person's imagination, rather, they are REPRESENTED symbolically in that person's imagination. > It can thereby be stated that free > will is a phenomenon that occurs within intelligent beings. It > describes an ability to perform trial and error experiments on > what appear to be arbitrary alternatives. It can thereby be stated that free will is a co-optical illusion that takes place inside the minds of human beings and possibly other organisms who have this REA capability. > Now, can you suggest anything better to describe this > phenomenon, or are you going to concede that this term is indeed > useful. I know it sounds like a loaded question, and it is. I > fail to see any other alternative. I just did. Thank you for the opportunity. > Before you go off and start dissecting an argument based > on a figment of the imagination, remember that " will " is a > human characteristic, and that " free will " should also describe > a human characteristic. "Unicorn" SHOULD describe a real existing animal, shouldn't it? > A figment of the imagination should be > recognized as a valid entity within this context. ( context > itself is a figment of the imagination ) See above. > I don't think this will be as easy to argue around, not > to say that you won't attempt to anyway. I just did. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/12/85)
In article <3518@decwrl.UUCP> williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) writes: > >2) Free implies that the choice is arbitrary But "free" does *not* mean "arbitrary", it means "unconstrained by direct external forces", quite a different thing. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/16/85)
In article <1451@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >On the contrary, it's a perfectly valid analogy because the subject >of the words is irrelevant to the analogy. If you find that something >you have defined, some word, does not represent a thing that exists >(e.g., some mythical creature/phenomenon), you can't just change the >definition to mean something else on the fly just because you feel >like it, just because you WANT a world in which centaurs, or unicorns, >or free wills, exist. > Well, I also say the analogy is invalid, but for a different reason. The term 'free"(and also the phrase Free Will) has more than on accepted, historically valid definition. Yours is one, but the one we are using is by no means new. The word "unicorn" has only one accepted definition, so using it in another sense violates the accepted usage of the word. In the case of "free" there is no such problem, it is perfectly acceptible, when a word has several meanings, to use the one which is most useful in a given context. All we are saying is that the definition you have chosen is less useful than the alternative definition. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/20/85)
>>On the contrary, it's a perfectly valid analogy because the subject >>of the words is irrelevant to the analogy. If you find that something >>you have defined, some word, does not represent a thing that exists >>(e.g., some mythical creature/phenomenon), you can't just change the >>definition to mean something else on the fly just because you feel >>like it, just because you WANT a world in which centaurs, or unicorns, >>or free wills, exist. [ROSEN] > Well, I also say the analogy is invalid, but for a different > reason. The term 'free"(and also the phrase Free Will) has more than > on accepted, historically valid definition. Yours is one, but the one > we are using is by no means new. [FRIESEN] What is it? What references do you cite for the validity of it? I honestly have yet to see any. Surely you don't mean "without cost"? I think we are dealing in the same definition of free here: unconstrained by dependencies on other things. > The word "unicorn" has only one > accepted definition, so using it in another sense violates the > accepted usage of the word. In the case of "free" there is no such > problem, it is perfectly acceptible, when a word has several meanings, > to use the one which is most useful in a given context. All we are > saying is that the definition you have chosen is less useful than the > alternative definition. Not true. You are in fact not changing the meaning of the word "free" (I think we're all talking about the definition above), you are talking about changing the meaning of the term "free will", which is entirely different. -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/26/85)
In article <1555@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >> Well, I also say the analogy is invalid, but for a different >> reason. The term 'free"(and also the phrase Free Will) has more than >> one accepted, historically valid definition. Yours is one, but the one >> we are using is by no means new. [FRIESEN] > >What is it? What references do you cite for the validity of it? I >honestly have yet to see any. Surely you don't mean "without cost"? >I think we are dealing in the same definition of free here: unconstrained >by dependencies on other things. > The definition I use is "unconstrained by *external* factors", that is "not controlled from *without*". This definition is in my dictionary(American Heritage Collegiate) and is the one used by a number of major philosophers when talking about human will. It differs from yours in the emphasized words, and this makes a large difference in requirements for the existence of free will. And that same dictionary defines free will as "the power or discretion to choose" and "man's choices are ... not determined by *external* causes", which definitions clearly are based on the definitions I am using, not the more restrictive one you are using. >> ... it is perfectly acceptible, when a word has several meanings, >> to use the one which is most useful in a given context. All we are >> saying is that the definition you have chosen is less useful than the >> alternative definition. > >Not true. You are in fact not changing the meaning of the word "free" >(I think we're all talking about the definition above), you are talking >about changing the meaning of the term "free will", which is entirely >different. See above, we are using a perfectly acceptible definition of the term free will. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/28/85)
>>> Well, I also say the analogy is invalid, but for a different >>>reason. The term 'free"(and also the phrase Free Will) has more than >>>one accepted, historically valid definition. Yours is one, but the one >>>we are using is by no means new. [FRIESEN] >>What is it? What references do you cite for the validity of it? I >>honestly have yet to see any. Surely you don't mean "without cost"? >>I think we are dealing in the same definition of free here: unconstrained >>by dependencies on other things. > The definition I use is "unconstrained by *external* > factors", that is "not controlled from *without*". This definition > is in my dictionary(American Heritage Collegiate) and is the one used > by a number of major philosophers when talking about human will. It > differs from yours in the emphasized words, and this makes a large > difference in requirements for the existence of free will. Hardly. Since the current configuration of the mind is determined (more than just slightly) by external experiences, is that not an external constraint? I'd really like to know why you can so easily dismiss this by saying "oh, but that's in the past, we're talking about right now", as if it was somehow exempt. And even if it were, aren't there events going on right now in the external world that affect the current decision? How much light there is in the room. How hot it is. What sights, sounds, smells, etc. happen to be around you at the time. Don't those factors alter your choice of action? Is it really free? > And that same dictionary defines free will as "the power or > discretion to choose" and "man's choices are ... not determined by > *external* causes", which definitions clearly are based on the > definitions I am using, not the more restrictive one you are using. They're only "more restrictive" in that I don't nonchalantly exempt past external influences because they interfere with my conclusion. And given the other examples I offer above, they don't work even if you could just exempt the past. >>> ... it is perfectly acceptible, when a word has several meanings, >>> to use the one which is most useful in a given context. All we are >>> saying is that the definition you have chosen is less useful than the >>> alternative definition. >>Not true. You are in fact not changing the meaning of the word "free" >>(I think we're all talking about the definition above), you are talking >>about changing the meaning of the term "free will", which is entirely >>different. > See above, we are using a perfectly acceptible definition of > the term free will. Indeed, and I believe once again I have shown a major problem and inconsistency regarding its use when applied to the real world. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr