Jackson, you’re basically defining free will as godlike power?
In so many words. Completely free will would probably manifest as some sort of omnipotence.
P.S. Ive gotten a couple questions how the free will issue is relevant to Praxeology. It’s not meant to be. Both of the topics were being related to physics in the OP. Here’s the thread that started Praxeology into it.
Given that definition of free will, and Mises statement (paraphrasing) that if the future was certain, humans would be like robots, always making the best possible decision to maximize psychic profit. I think we can then objectively characterize the “I” as a type of probability calculator. This falls in line with the subjective perception of “making choices” and “deciding what you want.” when people “decide what they want” they perform mental utility calculations. When people make snap decisions, it is either a time-economy maximizing decision or the decision is obvious, or perhaps they dont believe they have meaningful data and so act to acquire data.
Nevermind crime and punishment - what about simply surviving? If you feel hunger, you seek out food. If you have an injury, you apply first aid. You must react to the events in your environment or perish.
“Free will” may perhaps be an illusion, but it is, I believe, a very necessary one.
Sorry for taking so long to reply to this.
Thinking about it some more, I’d say the difference is actually one of absolute vs. relative ability. For example, let’s say a person desires to fly. Gravity would seem to impose a restriction on his ability to express this particular desire of his, right? He can’t fly by simply flapping his arms up and down or by simply thinking happy thoughts. Indeed, it would seem that if there exists at least one possible desire that can’t be expressed without restriction, it would seem that “unrestricted ability to express one’s desire” is therefore lacking in an absolute sense. Since this seems trivially true in the real world, I consider the term to have meaning only in an abstract, theoretical sense.
Now let’s say our hypothetical person’s arms have been weighed down by someone else so that he can’t lift them. As a result, he can’t even try flapping his arms (although he can still think happy thoughts). Presumably he could flap his arms if they hadn’t been weighted down by someone else. So we could say that here he’s restricted by that other person. The other person has essentially gotten in his way - and intentionally at that. Obviously we can look at the real world and see whether a person is (intentionally) in our way. “Unrestricted ability to express one’s desire” would then be fulfilled by an absence of that.
When you get right down to it, I think “positive” vs. “negative” in this context refers in large part to presence vs. absence. That’s not the whole picture though. There’s also a change of context - presence of absolute ability vs. absence of relative restriction. Do you see the difference?
Autolykos,
I do see the difference. Presence of absolute ability would be free will in my opinion.
Morality is not an inherent feature to the universe per se. It exists only within our minds.
I consider the notion of “free will” to entail the inability to know or figure out exactly what another person (or even oneself!) will do at any given point in the future.
I dont agree. I believe that morality is adherence to a divinely imposed standard of behavior that has inescapable consequences. I also posit the real, meaningful existence of the spirit world and the phenomenon of human reincarnation, so I dont know how seriously you will take my beliefs. I would like to point out that if you claim that morality should disappear if no humans were alive, I could just as easily say that the physical laws that govern the behavior of electrons would disappear if there were no electrons. As long as a human besides myself exists, morality can be said, for me, to exist objectively in my universe because it is outside of me. Assuming that human has a moral sense, which I believe is inherent in humans and inescapable. I dont believe I have ever encountered a true amoralist.
the future is uncertain so I would strike “know” from your definition. In a strictly philosophical sense, one can only estimate the future. As for the ability to make accurate predictions about human behavior, I believe that “free will” by your definition exists in greater and lesser degrees for everyone I have met.
Since you define “morality” differently from how I do, there’s nothing else to say here. We simply don’t agree.
With all due respect, I think that’s comparing apples to oranges. Morality per se isn’t a physical force. The only way in which it’s a physical phenomenon at all is in being encoded by neuron connections within our brains - hence why I said it exists only within our minds. Even then, however, to say that “morality exists objectively” seems to invite the question “Which morality?”
Actually, the inherent uncertainty of the future is the basis for my notion of “free will”. If we could calculate the future position of a particle with the utmost precision, would you agree that we would then “know” that future position? However, it seems that the ability to “know” this would require already “knowing” the entire universe at the current instant. At best, the requirements for such “knowledge” are staggering - for human beings.
I think you’re saying the same thing as I am when you say “[i]n a strictly philosophical sense, one can only estimate the future”. You’re just saying it in a different way. But treating the notion of “knowledge” in an absolute sense - either one has it or he doesn’t - would mean that the future is unknowable. It also means that one never knows another’s experiences. Estimating another’s future actions, or even one’s own, necessarily entails a non-zero probability of the estimate being incorrect. That, in a nutshell, is what I call “free will”.
Okay, then no one can ever be said to have what you call “free will”, and the concept is meaningless for any discourse involving the real world.
I believe that a similar statement could be made regarding the laws of physics. The only way that they exist at all is as a set of generalized observations encoded by neuron connections within our brains. Calling lemon juice “acidic” is just like calling theft “wrong” in that both require reference to a theory that rests upon a priori assumptions.
As for your definition of “free will”, given your qualified definition of “know” I have no objections.
You don’t know that. Lucid dreaming.
I don’t know what the “real world” is.
Moving the goalposts much?
Then why did you start this thread?
Presumably electrons behave the same no matter what the “circumstances” are. But there exist people who either don’t believe that theft is wrong at all or simply don’t think it’s wrong when they themselves do it. Another way of putting this is that we don’t observe morality, but we do observe electrons.
Readng this a few more times, it seems to be similar to when I define the “I” as a probability calculator.
I am the negotiator between my soul and the rest of the universe. Or replace “ego” for “soul” if you like.
whatever the “trade-off managing factor” is, thats an “I”. “Ego” is the one that hurts when you are injured somehow.
Yes, however we do not observe electrons, strictly speaking. That is my point. And we do observe morality, remember before you “learned” that morality is “subjective” (or whatever your preferred term, not trying to quibble) how people “should” do this and “shouldn’t” do that? You observed an inherent sense of right and wrong. The fact that your understanding of what behaviors are fitting for a human to engage in, and which are not, has evolved does not mean the whole idea is wrong. In fact, we can observe that nearly everyone has a sense of right and wrong, although their opinions on what acts are right and wrong are widely divergent. In fact, it is kind of like property rights, where everyone knows they exist, but some people choose to forget. In an agnostic sense, morals are what you teach your children. They arent laws you enforce on your neighbor.
Autolykos,
How am I moving the goalposts? Controlling dreams equates to having your entire perceptual history at your fingertips. It’s as close to a God as I could currently get.
Why did I start this thread… no reason, really.
If free will = omnipotence, we already have a word for that. I think free will is functionally only viable as a concept applied to other people. Can I predict what you will do if I know enough about your atoms, or is it impossible even in principle. Free will for oneself, on the other hand, is obvious if it just means I can make choices.
If free will = omnipotence, we already have a word for that. I think free will is functionally only viable as a concept applied to other people. Can I predict what you will do if I know enough about your atoms, or is it impossible even in principle. Free will for oneself, on the other hand, is obvious if it just means I can make choices.
I think it may be good to say - any word can be used (glass half full - half empty; 1.1 Meters - 1 Yard, etc) the word itself doesn’t matter, what matters is is it neccesary to what is being described in inter subjective communication to paint a picture of obvious reality. If something is not necessary, it can not be spoken of with any sense.
Not if A than B; but if both A and B - it must be so.
My thoughts exactly. I basically don’t find any use for the term, although I suppose someone could one day define it in a useful way (somehow, perhaps).
I think the idea of “free will” was raised as more of a reaction to the notion of “determinism,” which I think is also a mystical notion, along with “objective” and “reality,” unless they are defined in a practical way. Practical ways would be “objective: other people agree with me” and “reality: sensations that matter to me over the long term.” (But they are almost never defined this way in philosophy.)