Free Will

[Hnefi]

Imagine that the system wants to achieve goal X and devises a strategy that will achieve X on every single possible input. This can be trivial (return 3), or very complex (earn a million dollars). Arguably, the input conditions the reaction of the system, but ultimately, the result is that X will be achieved and you can't trace that particular result back to the input because it happens no matter what the input is. In other words, you can imagine non-trivial systems that react differently on different inputs yet always achieve a precise objective. Albeit, ultimately, the means of achieving it may be traced back to the input, the fact that the objective is achieved can only be traced back to the system.

True. But just because a process is intractable does not mean that it is indeterministic or that it has free will. The system you describe above is deterministic, because its actions are completely causal (assuming there is no random noise). The output of the system - that is, the actions taken - will depend directly on the input.

Basically, what you describe is an arbitrarily complex control system, which you will find in most mechanical systems today. The system constitutes a function f and for any series of inputs, f will always produce the same series of outputs. In other words, given a known input, the actions of the system are predetermined.

To give you a semi-concrete example, imagine that you have to shoot a target. You have visual input and that input will tell you where to shoot. Nonetheless, when the target is hit, the ultimate cause isn't your visual input because had the target been elsewhere, you would have shot somewhere else, but the target would still have been destroyed. The result "target destroyed" does not depend on the input. You didn't choose where to shoot but you chose to shoot it.

But the output isn't "target destroyed", the output is whatever actions you perform to destroy the target, and those actions are directly dependent on the input. To destroy the target is the goal. Goals and outputs are different things.

It is also not certain that the target would be destroyed. The input you receive might not be sufficient to plan the necessary chain of actions to achieve your goal. This, too, is directly dependent on the input.

(I agree with all non-quoted parts of your post.)

 

[Hnefi]

Ops.

 

[Aradia]

Here is a simple random/deterministic hybrid:

0 with probability 35%
1 with probability 65%

Basically, any non-uniform probability distribution is "hybrid".

Take a full deck of 52 cards. Shuffle and draw the top card.
Probability of drawing a queen: 1 in 13.
Probability of drawing a non-queen: 12 in 13.
Probability that the outcome hasn't been specifically determined by the initial condition of the cards and the shuffle: 0.

 

[DailyBlessings]

We are arguing for "free will" are we not? A free action is one that is exempt from external authority, interference, restriction. Would you agree?

I'm not sure that definition is entirely good, as to call something "free" from authority, interference, etc. would make one's decisions non-responsive to factors that most creatures would will to have the ability to consider- reason, for instance. Such a condition would be completely random (and I think we can conclude with some certainty that this kind of randomity is not present in our decisions) so I don't think it is what most people mean when they talk about possessing a will. I would say that a free action is one made consciously and intentionally by a creature possessing a will. I don't see the concept as necessarily contradictory to the notion of determinism per say, but I do take offense at the (in my view) poor reasoning employed by the question.

 

[Aradia]

That's not a choose your own adventure book. God, being the creator, is not the reader. The reader is moving along at the same timeline the characters are in, with no real foreknowledge of events.

God, being the creator of this universe, knows what is to happen. To throw out "well I could have done this instead of this" is completely pointless since it is apparent to God what will happen.

I don't think your analogy is working.

Well, of course it isn't. The book analogy only pertained to the whole "bound by time" thing, not free will and predetermination and such.

 

[elman]

I guess technically it is your choice, but since nothing is truely random, and God created everything (according to you, I imagine), it is fair to to say that God has basically made the choice for you.

No God did not create evil. Man did. And my decisions are not truly random but are often determined by me. It is not fair to say God has made all my choices for me.

 

[elman]

Irrelevant, to God (the third party observer), the future has already happened so it is like the past in that it cannot be changed.

It doesn't matter if the future hasn't happened relative to us, the idea of free will is illusory. It would be like characters in a book claiming they have free will, while the writer is jotting down those words himself.

No I am writing the book day by day. God knows what I am going to write but God is not controlling what I write. The future that has already happened to God is the present I create.

 

[elman]

We are arguing for "free will" are we not? A free action is one that is exempt from external authority, interference, restriction. Would you agree?

Of course not. No one believes we make decisions without being influenced by all sorts of things including external authority. And we are all restricted in our ability to do things and effected by our enviroment and brain chemistry. It is within these influences and restrictions that we make our decisions and exercise our free will-the ability to be loving to others and the ability to harm others. The issue is are we robots who are contoled completely by these outside and inside factors or not. I believe not.

 

[Asimov]

I'm not sure that definition is entirely good, as to call something "free" from authority, interference, etc. would make one's decisions non-responsive to factors that most creatures would will to have the ability to consider- reason, for instance. Such a condition would be completely random (and I think we can conclude with some certainty that this kind of randomity is not present in our decisions) so I don't think it is what most people mean when they talk about possessing a will. I would say that a free action is one made consciously and intentionally by a creature possessing a will. I don't see the concept as necessarily contradictory to the notion of determinism per say, but I do take offense at the (in my view) poor reasoning employed by the question.

You're not speaking of free will. You're speaking of volition.

 

[DailyBlessings]

You're not speaking of free will. You're speaking of volition.

I'm speaking of both. If you are defining free will as a complete lack of influence from, for instance, reason and experience, then free will probably does not exist. However, I really don't think that most people arguing for free will demand that their decisions are completely random or even wholly autonomous- just that their decisions are consciously reflective of their individual volition and identity.

 

[tcampen]

Free will with regard to any choice requires a point at which no one knows what choice will be - even god. For if god knew, what ability would one have to choose otherwise. If I am powerless to make a choice other than that which is already known, then I have no real choice at all.

Foreknowledge does not force anyone to do anything, necessarily, but a lack of choice does negate free will. As a result, free will and omniscience are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Free will with regard to any choice requires a point at which no one knows what choice will be - even god. For if god knew, what ability would one have to choose otherwise. If I am powerless to make a choice other than that which is already known, then I have no real choice at all.

Foreknowledge does not force anyone to do anything, necessarily, but a lack of choice does negate free will. As a result, free will and omniscience are mutually exclusive concepts.

You seem to be associating free will with secrecy?

 

[Asimov]

I'm speaking of both. If you are defining free will as a complete lack of influence from, for instance, reason and experience, then free will probably does not exist.

Then don't use the word free.

However, I really don't think that most people arguing for free will demand that their decisions are completely random or even wholly autonomous- just that their decisions are consciously reflective of their individual volition and identity.

And nobody denies that, the only issue that it isn't free.

 

[DailyBlessings]

And nobody denies that, the only issue that it isn't free.

So basically, your problem with free will is your semantic understanding of the word "free", not free will itself? The church, at least, has never taught that free will implies total randomness or autonomy in decision-making; salvation would be impossible in such a view, for one thing. So if the only question is whether your understanding of the concept of "freedom" jives with the reality of what free will describes, I fail to see why the point is worth discussing. Freedom is a culturally or individually understood value, unless you can imbue your understanding of it with truth value proceeding from reason.

 

[Asimov]

So basically, your problem with free will is your semantic understanding of the word "free", not free will itself? The church, at least, has never taught that free will implies total randomness or autonomy in decision-making; salvation would be impossible in such a view, for one thing. So if the only question is whether your understanding of the concept of "freedom" jives with the reality of what free will describes, I fail to see why the point is worth discussing. Freedom is a culturally or individually understood value, unless you can imbue your understanding of it with truth value proceeding from reason.

How is it a semantic problem to state that a will that is free is free by the definition of free?

 

[Aradia]

According to Oxford CED:

free will: noun the power to act without the constraints of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.

volition: noun (often in phrase of one’s own volition) the faculty or power of using one’s will.

If y'all are going to argue semantics, at least cite sources for your definitions.

 

[DailyBlessings]

According to Oxford CED:

free will: noun the power to act without the constraints of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.

volition: noun (often in phrase of one’s own volition) the faculty or power of using one’s will.

If y'all are going to argue semantics, at least cite sources for your definitions.

Thanks Aradia!

And the above, Asimov, is why I think you are turning it into a semantic debate- you are trying to change the definition of free will.

By the way, freedom is defined in the same volume as:

"The power to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint"

and in reference to philosophy:

"The power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent from fate or necessity."

Randomness or complete independence from external influence have nothing to do with it.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

How is it a semantic problem to state that a will that is free is free by the definition of free?

You can actually commission free will into an actuality that you choose through free will. I did not choose to be born but never the less i am born to be free in living my life. Since i did not choose my freedom i was "condemned to be free" and thus freedom comes from a sense of a persona of not choosing through free will.

 

[elman]

Free will with regard to any choice requires a point at which no one knows what choice will be - even god. For if god knew, what ability would one have to choose otherwise. If I am powerless to make a choice other than that which is already known, then I have no real choice at all.

Foreknowledge does not force anyone to do anything, necessarily, but a lack of choice does negate free will. As a result, free will and omniscience are mutually exclusive concepts.

But forknowledge of a choice does not negate choice and therefore does not negate free will. Thus free will and omniscience are not mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[tcampen]

You seem to be associating free will with secrecy?

Secrecy is irrelevent. Free will requires a point in which if the person making the decision does not know with absolute certainty what that choice will be.