5 ms·

Much of the confusion about free will and how much free is our will comes from experiments that study limit cases like our body reactions to external stimuli or

Much of the confusion about free will and how much free is our will comes from experiments that study limit cases like our body reactions to external stimuli or something of the sort. But I don't think anyone can seriously state that we are absolutely free, specially when our bodies are involved. Extreme cases reveal that that there's much to say about how we (body+mind) work, and we're certainly not absolutely free. The simplest and, perhaps, best argument for our partial freedom is that we can ask questions. I don't think there is any kind of property in the physical world that would yield questions and truth-intuition about answers to those questions. Electrons just bump into each other. They don't ask questions about it. They move on like there's no tomorrow.

Retric 11y ago
Software which clearly does not have free will asked a question allowing you to enter that post. So, if you exclude the language part of asking questions as cruft the type of experiments that human baby's do is the same type of experemnts birds do when learning to fly. But, biological examples of this get really simple and plenty of people have built non biological examples. At a lower level you can argue that QM shows every time a wave function collapsed a question was asked and answered. Which is really the issue of free will, most definions boil down to either, 'humans' or include simple systems that clearly lack choice.
- rrss1122 11y ago
  You could think of that software's question as an extension of the creator/owner of the software. Said person is asking for your opinion and delegating to the software the ability to receive your opinion and display it to other people.
  - cristianpascu 11y ago
    Exactly!
  - Retric 11y ago
    By that notion, by opening or closing a door or even standing on some sand I endow it with free will. Which is an odd way of looking at the world as more or less everything on the earth would then be endowed with free will. Honestly, I can see that what you are taking about being a property. But calling it free will just muddles the debate.
StavrosK 11y ago
I don't understand what free will means. Either all your decisions are pre-determined, or they're made at random. Is one better than the other?
- coldtea 11y ago
  That's a simplistic dichotomy. Random implies no agent (self) at all. It's just a roll of the dice. Pre-determined, on the other hand, it's not incompatible with free will (precisely because free-will doesn't mean "randomness" -- it just means it's not imposed upon you by an external agent. Let's imagine a totally deterministic universe. How could ever pre-determined play well with "not imposed upon you by an external agent"? Because this pre-determined you is not an external agent imposing its will on a third subject, it's exactly who you are as a "self". That is, you are your history (and JUST that), and the only decision your self could make is a decision based on its precise history, which is exactly what it makes every time. Anything else wouldn't be YOU or YOUR free will, it will be arbitrary (random). So, I think people just have this misconception that "free will" should have the emphasis on "free" -- to mean "whatever". But the emphasis should be that it's a "will", i.e. the expression of the subject. And such an expression can only be understood in the sense of a subject that has history (you weren't just born this instant) and that makes decisions precisely drawing upon that history -- not just as a source of inspiration of his final decision, but as the total embodiment of his past (with all its aspects) in his decision. In other words, free will is not you being free to will anything. It's just you being free to be you -- an entity of a concrete past.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    I disagree with at least one of your premises. In a deterministic universe, one could (assuming perfect knowledge) predict this exact comment you would make now, thousands of years before you were even born. How is that free will? I disagree that there can be free will when all your actions can be known to an omniscient party beforehand. Where's the freedom in that?
    - coldtea 11y ago

Retric 11y ago

Software which clearly does not have free will asked a question allowing you to enter that post. So, if you exclude the language part of asking questions as cruft the type of experiments that human baby's do is the same type of experemnts birds do when learning to fly. But, biological examples of this get really simple and plenty of people have built non biological examples. At a lower level you can argue that QM shows every time a wave function collapsed a question was asked and answered. Which is really the issue of free will, most definions boil down to either, 'humans' or include simple systems that clearly lack choice.

rrss1122 11y ago
You could think of that software's question as an extension of the creator/owner of the software. Said person is asking for your opinion and delegating to the software the ability to receive your opinion and display it to other people.
- cristianpascu 11y ago
  Exactly!
- Retric 11y ago
  By that notion, by opening or closing a door or even standing on some sand I endow it with free will. Which is an odd way of looking at the world as more or less everything on the earth would then be endowed with free will. Honestly, I can see that what you are taking about being a property. But calling it free will just muddles the debate.

StavrosK 11y ago

I don't understand what free will means. Either all your decisions are pre-determined, or they're made at random. Is one better than the other?

coldtea 11y ago
That's a simplistic dichotomy. Random implies no agent (self) at all. It's just a roll of the dice. Pre-determined, on the other hand, it's not incompatible with free will (precisely because free-will doesn't mean "randomness" -- it just means it's not imposed upon you by an external agent. Let's imagine a totally deterministic universe. How could ever pre-determined play well with "not imposed upon you by an external agent"? Because this pre-determined you is not an external agent imposing its will on a third subject, it's exactly who you are as a "self". That is, you are your history (and JUST that), and the only decision your self could make is a decision based on its precise history, which is exactly what it makes every time. Anything else wouldn't be YOU or YOUR free will, it will be arbitrary (random). So, I think people just have this misconception that "free will" should have the emphasis on "free" -- to mean "whatever". But the emphasis should be that it's a "will", i.e. the expression of the subject. And such an expression can only be understood in the sense of a subject that has history (you weren't just born this instant) and that makes decisions precisely drawing upon that history -- not just as a source of inspiration of his final decision, but as the total embodiment of his past (with all its aspects) in his decision. In other words, free will is not you being free to will anything. It's just you being free to be you -- an entity of a concrete past.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  I disagree with at least one of your premises. In a deterministic universe, one could (assuming perfect knowledge) predict this exact comment you would make now, thousands of years before you were even born. How is that free will? I disagree that there can be free will when all your actions can be known to an omniscient party beforehand. Where's the freedom in that?
  - coldtea 11y ago