3 ms·
The free will debate usually falls into two camps. One holds that we have free will, period. The other holds that it’s some kind of illusion, period. I believe
by api 2y ago
The free will debate usually falls into two camps. One holds that we have free will, period. The other holds that it’s some kind of illusion, period.
I believe that we have it but it is not some kind of context free limitless divine power. It’s constrained like all other real things.
Our free will is more like the ailerons on a plane. It can steer the plane. It cannot make the plane stop instantly or make 90 degree hard turns. It cannot stop another plane from running into you, or stop a bird strike, or rescue the plane if the wing falls off.
I think what I’m getting at is that as our technology for influencing each other advances we can never be sure exactly where we are in comparison to the strength of our own free will. At what point might we invent ways to influence each other that renders us mindless biological robots?
- gfody 2y agothis is pretty much what Conway says about it too. we have about as much free will as fundamental particles.
- api 2y agoThat’s an interesting way to put a floor on it but I think he’s neglecting emergence and nonlinear dynamics. Deterministic objects in a system can become computationally irreducible and manifest higher order behaviors that are not reducible or predictable. Of course then you get into the challenge of defining free will. Is it enough to be impossible to predict or is actual acausality required? If the latter you are into quantum mechanics or bust.