ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (08/04/84)
From Jim Balter: By my definition, I have free will if neither you nor I can predict my actions. At last, a definition so we have some idea of what we are talking about! The problem with this definition does not seem to capture what most people mean by free will. No one can predict when a given uranium atom will decay, yet uranium atoms are not generally viewed as having free will. Although many people would argue that a being does not have free will if its behavior can be predicted with perfect accuracy, it does not follow that behaving in a random fashion is the equivilant of posessing free will. Basicly, people use the concept of free will to argue that people are responsible for their actions; and free will as defined by Jim cannot be used for this purpose. As the title of this article suggests, I don't consider the concept of free will to be very useful, but the task of defining it is interesting so I will make an attempt. Going back to the notion of personal responsibility, it seems that what free will advocates are looking for is a means to counter arguments like, "It isn't his fault; he had a bad childhood". They want to be able to argue that the bad child- hood was not the cause of the person's actions. This suggests the following definition: A creature has free will iff that creature is the cause of its actions. OK, what does this mean? First, by the word creature I am referring to the mind of the creature. I hope that by now we are all agreed that it is possible to use the word "mind" to refer to an abstract concept, even if we disagree about the usefulness of this abstraction. That leaves the word "cause" to be defined, which is a biggie. I will hope that you have a general idea of what I mean and content myself with a few comments. Most (probably all, but I'm being cautious) events have an infinite number of causes. For example, why am I typing this article into the computer tonight? A believer in free will would answer that my mind is causing my fingers to move and type in this message. On the other hand, if somebody had dropped a 10,000 pound weight on me while I was walking into work today, my fingers would obviously be in no condition to type in this message. So the fact that nobody dropped a 10,000 pound weight on me today is also a cause. Clearly, I can think of an arbitrary number of other causes, so the question becomes "Which cause is the most meaningful." "Meaningfulness" is an aesthetic concept, and thus there is no precise way of measuring it, any more than you can have a precise yardstick for telling whether one piece of music is better than another. Thus whether you view my actions as caused by my mind, or by a combination of genetics and environment, is a matter of taste. Psychologists and sociologists are likely to view the concept of free will as an impediment to the construction of elegant theories of human behavior. Moral philosophers, on the other hand, are likely to view the concept of free will as indispensible to the construction of a satisfying system of ethics. There is no one correct answer to the question of whether free will exists because it is not a scientific concept, but a religious concept. If you define "free will" in such a way as to make it a scientific concept (which is what Jim did), then "free will" will no longer be a religious concept because religious truths cannot come from science, and most people will no longer care whether "free will" exists or not. Kenneth Almquist
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/04/85)
I do not understand all the fuss. The answer is very simple: Whether or not we have free will, we should behave as if we do, because if we don't, it doesn't matter. This is different from Pascal's wager because there is a true excluded middle here: either we have free will or not.
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/04/85)
Rich, I am obviously not getting my point across. Either I am communicating badly, or you are not listening/thinking, or both. I am going to give it one more shot, with an analogy. If this doesn't work, I am going to pack it in. This will not mean that I agree with you, but just that I do not think that I know what it takes to communicate with you, nor how to go about learning how. The subject of this analogy is: 2 ways in which to watch the movie STAR WARS. The first way is the way that most people watch the movie STAR WARS. You go to the theater. You have already seen the movie 17 times before. This does not matter. As you enter the theater you willingly suspend your disbelief in ``the Force'' inter-galactic civilisations, space ships that can travel faster than the speed of light, light-sabers, and robots like C3P0. You also get involved in the story. When you get to crucial moments in the story -- for instance, when Tarkin threatens to destroy Alderaan -- you really believe that this is an important decision, and fervantly hope that Tarkin will spare the planet. This is distinct from the second way in which you can watch the same movie. What you do is to get a videotape and then get a bunch of people who work at Industrial Lights and Magic to come over. You watch the film very differently then. You are very aware of the plot, because you a waiting for the big explosions. When Alderaan blows up you get a description of how the filming of that went, and who was responsible, and technical problems that they ran into, and, incidentally, who was brilliant and why. These are both terrific ways in which to watch a movie, but they are very different. In the first way you willingly forget that the movie must follow a pre-determined script. You willingly believe that the actors are real people who can either blow up Alderaan or not. In the second you are constantly aware that the actors will follow certain patterns, and you do not think that Alderaan can be saved -- you are waiting anxiously for it to blow up so you can watch the special effects. ----------------------------------------------- I think that this is a good analogy to life. For the purpose of argument, I am going to assume that my actions are entirely determined by the chemicals that make me up. What am I doing as I live my life? Well, currently I am living it as I watch STAR WARS -- the first way. If it is the truth that my decisions are determined by my chemicals, much as what is seen when you watch STAR WARS was determined by Lucasfilms, then I have done such a good job of willingly suspending my belief that I am not aware, even peripherally, that I am doing so. I think that my decisions *matter*. I think that when I decide to fire someone (the most serious thing I have done recently) that I can either do it or not. I do not think that my chemicals have determined me to fire someone, and that this determination was done long before I ever made the decision. In short, I think that I can either blow up Alderaan or not. Even if it could not be that I could have done other than fire that person, I still believe that I could have. What you are doing, Rich, is analagous to the part of my friends in ILM. Even if I wanted to watch STAR WARS in the first fashion, I could not with them around. They keep saying ``wait until you see the planet blow'' and ``wait until you see this shot'' at me. I cannot willingly believe that Tarkin could not blow up Alderaan while they are there reminding me of how glorious the exposion is going to be. IN THE SAME WAY, I cannot view my decisions as being important while you are there reminding me that they are alldetermined by my chemicals and that the outcome is going to be what had to be. So I took you seriously and started looking at my life in the how to watch STAR WARS number 2 fashion. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The great problem with the STAR WARS number 2 fashion of watching STAR WARS is that it trivialises the plot. The Plot and the characters do not matter, they are merely filler in between the shots of exploding things and other ILM magic. The plot doesn't matter, it is the effects that count. But, in *my* life, it is the PLOT, not the EFFECTS that matter. You are trivialising my life because what matters to me is my PLOT. I cannot watch my life in teh same way I can watch STAR WARS in the second fashion. My decisions are important to me as decisions -- not as filler before we get to the interesting exposions! If you take away the plot of my life, I will commit suicide. I am only enjoying life in that I think that I, like Tarkin, can blow up Aalderaans. If you convince me that I do not determine whether or not Aalderaan blows up, but rather such things are determined by chemical laws which merely work their way out to results in my brain then I am stuck with the non-choice of either living my life as a STAR WARS viewed in way 2, or not living at all. I know myself well enough to know that I would be chemically determined to kill myself at that point. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/09/85)
When *I* watch Star Wars, *I* watch the movie for its entertainment/impact value *AND* I marvel at its technical merits. Both at the same time. Same with life. What's the problem? (NOW, you're telling me how I watch movies?) And I still fail to see why acknowledging the craft that went into the film (or the wondrous things that occure in the experience of life) diminishes the value of the "plot". It doesn't for me. By the way, I was both listening and thinking, despite your accusations. What I wasn't doing was agreeing. Not doing the latter doesn't ipso facto rule out either of the first two... -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (04/09/85)
Laura Creighton writes: >...I am only enjoying life in that I think that I, like Tarkin, can blow >up Aalderaans. Eesh! Not only does she want FREE WILL, she wants to ENJOY LIFE by blowing up Aalderaans! Maybe NOT having free will is better! :-) Merlyn Leroy "...The body of a woman was found in the river today, believed to be a suicide. A note was discovered, bearing the message 'I think I am'..."
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/09/85)
An even better example more related to my own experience. As a musician, I not only appreciate songs/compositions as a listening experience, but also as something to marvel at from a perspective of awe at the process of composition/creation/performance. When I listen to Debussy's "Footprints in the Snow", or Partch's "Daphne of the Dunes", or Lennon and McCartney singing "If I Fell", I can marvel not only the experience of listening but the form and craft of the composition itself. "If I Fell" may be a primordial Beatles tearjerker, but I can appreciate it as both a listening experience AND an admiration of its craft, having learned and studied it to understand what went into making that piece what it is. Again, the same goes for living life. Attempting to know and understand the mechanisms of life, of thought, of action, does not impede appreciating life as it happens. It's not necessary to forcefit notions of free will just to placate your own need not to believe in those mechanisms. You can have both an appreciation of the mechanisms and an appreciation of their results. Your point that you choose to believe in free will because otherwise you would feel no purpose in living is contradicted by the fact that other people do feel purpose without assuming free will. You had claimed that for you this is an impossibility. I hope for your sake that it is not, and that this provides an alternative to that. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (04/17/85)
> > When *I* watch Star Wars, *I* watch the movie for its entertainment/impact > value *AND* I marvel at its technical merits. Both at the same time. Same > with life. What's the problem? (NOW, you're telling me how I watch movies?) Rich, your posting is a nausiating example of the difference between argueing and conversing. So the metaphor may have flaws, but take the point in the light it was meant, and not maitain an arguement for it's own sake. Laura, your point has a major flaw. All you are saying is that you have a "will", you just proved that that will may not be free. The difference being that I can be meta-cognisant and make decisions based on my self-awareness, while those decisions could still be predicted by a very detailed study of your brain and the laws of physics. (Trying to decifer the source code while analyzing the computer with an oscilliscope. Could probably be done, but don't ask me to do it.) I have yet another question... Doesn't Schroedinger's Cat prove that there is a difference between my mind and day to day physical events? -- ------------- Micha Berger {philabs|cucard|pegasus|rocky2}!aecom!berger A Fugue in One Voice
pnp@ihnp1.UUCP (Peter Prokopowicz) (07/23/85)
As I have just become acquainted with this august forum
of scholarly debate, I ask everyone's patience should I
repeat points that may have been given earlier. First,
would the following be accepted as a desription of free
will? Free will is the doctrine that humans are capable
of deliberate (ie not random) actions which are not
wholly determined by preceding events. Based on this,
notions of free will founded on quantum mechanics are
not valid in that they imply random actions, not deliberate
choice. Also, it seems that the hypothetical rational
being disussed earlier would not be free, in that its
actions would be entirely predicatable, at least in priniciple,
and hence wholly determined by preceding events. It seems that
anyone placing faith in the modern scientific view of the world
would be forced to admit that ALL events ("internal" as well as
visible) are wholly determined. However, I know of no one who
will claim that modern science can explain how it is that chemical
processes, acting together, can produce a consciousness, free or
otherwise, such as we all experience.franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (08/05/85)
I have a question regarding the REA (interpretation?/definition?) of free will. Consider the case where you are robbed at gunpoint. Is handing over your money an act of free will? I think that by the conventional use of the word the answer is quite definitely no; but I see no way to get that answer by an REA definition. What is our REA advocate's position regarding this situation?
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (08/09/85)
In article <562@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >I have a question regarding the REA (interpretation?/definition?) of >free will. Consider the case where you are robbed at gunpoint. Is >handing over your money an act of free will? I think that by the >conventional use of the word the answer is quite definitely no; but >I see no way to get that answer by an REA definition. What is our >REA advocate's position regarding this situation? You're right. The problem is that we have two areas in which a person can be free or unfree (and if he is unfree in either, then he is unfree overall). There are INTERNAL constraints that interfere with one's "free will" -- a good example might be brainwashing -- and then there are EXTERNAL constraints like having a gun pointed at you. When people talk about "free will", they are usually talking about the absence of internal constraints; when talking about the absence of external constraints, the word is "freedom" (simpliciter). Why have two terms? Well, consider a different case: the guy with the gun wants you to kill two bystanders. He hands you a gun, warning you that he is the "fastest gun in the west so don't try anything dumb; now kill those two or I'll kill you." Still want to insist that if you comply, it's not an act of free will? And therefore you're not responsible if you kill the innocent bystanders? I'm not trying to say what's right or wrong here, but I think we want to say that there is a genuine (and hard!) CHOICE here. So, yes, handing over your money is an act of "free will" but it's not free (simpliciter) because of the external threat. --Paul V Torek