3 ms·

Ask HN: What exactly constitutes free will?

• dmfdmf 11y ago
  > Convince me otherwise. This statement presupposes free will. Free will is not primarily a political concept but an epistemological concept that has political implications. Free will is an irreducible primary that many people today want to ignore, deny, evade to shirk the responsibility of judgement. Free will is validated by introspection and no one can convince you of its axiomatic nature except your self, i.e. your own will, which makes it paradoxically circular or self-referential but nevertheless it is at the base of ALL knowledge.
  • chirau 11y ago
    So you would agree with me then that free will ultimately leads to chaos? It would constitute freedom to hate openly and freedom to retaliate openly too.
    • Mimu 11y ago
      Not really. We have rules but free will allows you to do whatever you want. Hence why hate crimes actually happens, or terrorists or whatever things we have rules against. Absence of rules may lead to chaos (I'm not entirely convinced since we didn't have rules before, so absence of rules may actually lead to rules) but this has nothing to do with free will imo.
• sova 11y ago
  Well, your question asks on a few different levels. There is the personal level, the societal/community level, and the over-encompassing reality. On the personal level, we're restricted somewhat by our current situation, so you have free will like a stream has the ability to curve paths down a mountain. It could go left or right, but every decision branches, and if the stream is going quickly, there is less choice involved, whereas if it is running slowly or smoothly, there is a lot of directability. On the societal level, our basic premise here in the United States is that we are all entitled to life liberty and property, and conventionally we extend this to happiness. Actions that don't impinge on another citizen's path to these are considered alright, and I think that is a fine way to be: don't harm others. Why? Well you wouldn't want it to happen to you, and in the world of generalities (and overall reality) you could just as easily have been born on the other end of that string/strand. Then what would absolute free will be? Well, the ability to change your body shape, change your environment by thinking.. perhaps even with less effort than is involved in "thinking" with words and images. It's an interesting question, but in general free will is the ability to direct your flow, it doesn't necessarily entail being able to change the pre-existing flow, unless you mean gradually. I find the river and stream metaphor extremely valuable in this context, and have heard karma spoken of in a similar fashion. Everything dissolves, you can make skillful actions and direct your stream to goodness. Ideally, intelligent and sensitive people are directing their flows to unbound potential, because as you can see, it is easy to continue into a spiral that minimizes, whereas it is actually possible with effort to "flow back up" the mountain, coming to a place of total potential, where you might be able to experience or talk about an "absolute free will" Thus, in my simpleton opinion, free will is not an absolute unless you are directing your own capacities toward the experience of an absolute freedom. The Supreme Court thing... could you provide an example?
  • chirau 11y ago
    I agree with most of what you said, except your definition of absolute free will. I think the absolute one would mean doing whatever you desire and is in your capacity. Changing shape and such are mere desires that we cannot accomplish due to limitations of our nature. That does not take away from our free will. Free will is the ability to do what we want and can do with our resources. Free will is having the choice to kick you or cat for no reason. It is also the freedom for both of you to retaliate. So is free will ultimately what we desire or we rarely take time comprehend what it comprises and its repercussions? Supreme Court example: Marijuana is not legalized by the Supreme Court, but states have individually legalized it. In the same light but in different directions, gay marriage was legalized last week, can a state go ahead and illegalize it?
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]