Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.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.
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.)
Here is a simple random/deterministic hybrid:
0 with probability 35%
1 with probability 65%
Basically, any non-uniform probability distribution is "hybrid".
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.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.You're not speaking of free will. You're speaking of volition.
You seem to be associating free will with secrecy?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.
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.
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.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.
Thanks Aradia!According to Oxford CED:
free will: noun the power to act without the constraints of necessity or fate; the ability to act at ones own discretion.
volition: noun (often in phrase of ones own volition) the faculty or power of using ones will.
If y'all are going to argue semantics, at least cite sources for your definitions.
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.How is it a semantic problem to state that a will that is free is free by the definition of free?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?