[net.philosophy] On Free Will

gmf@uvacs.UUCP (07/10/84)

Testamentally


Most stars are furnaces
  but some are clasps.
One day the sky will open
  like a cloak
to show the circuitry,
  the bits and waves
which architect the days
  that age our destinies.

Our wills (for all your argumentery),
  our wills (except for that)

are free.


Gordon Fisher


(Inspired by the recent debate on mind, behaviorism, free will and
all like that in net.philosophy.)

rogerb@tektronix.UUCP (Roger Bonzer) (07/18/84)

-------------------------------------

[Ignore this non-existent line]

What is free will?  We say that we use it to make choices with, but that
doesn't say much.  All we can say is that options get evaluated (obviously
not a static one, since most peoples' priorities change during their lives)
and a choice is somehow selected.  Note that, after evaluation, the 'weight'
of an option should be completely independent of the actual option, because
if it is used in the actual choosing, it must have been considered somehow,
and can therefore be included in its 'weight.'

Now obviously the choice is not made by any sort of consistent (but not
necessarily static) weighing function (ie, take the one that is
most/least/whatever), because that would imply some sort of deterministic
thinking process, thus denying the accepted meaning of free will.

Therefore, it would seem that, since choices are not consistent, 'free will'
could be replaced with no discernible difference by an appropriate type of
random generator. (And of course the reason everyone is different is because
we all started off with different seeds!  But seriously, folks... :-)  Is
what you mean by having free will merely that you are sufficiently random?
It does not seem any better to say that one is not a Pawn of Inexorable
Law just to say that one is a Avatar of Dynamic Caprice, either.


	Roger B.
	...!tektronix!rogerb

'Reality is merely God's Gedankenexperiment.'