Free Will (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Sunday, September 05, 2010, 14:18 (4975 days ago) @ romansh

I am dissatisfied with Romansh's definition of free will as "the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe", because it excludes the internal influences over which we have no control.-ROMANSH: While my definition does presuppose human beings, at least in my mind's eye; the definition itself does not. It applies to machines, bricks, computers, plants, animals etc.-My objection still stands. Machines, bricks, computers, plants, animals etc. may also be subject to internal influences over which they have no control. I will now be very daring and suggest that a brick might perhaps not have free will because so far as we know it has no brain, is incapable of thought, movement, conscious action, conscious choice etc. We needn't argue about whether all this is so, because I've said "might perhaps". My point is the possibility that internal factors (whether present or absent) may determine whether or not it has free will. I will be equally daring and say that animals have a brain, are capable of movement, and may be capable of conscious action and conscious choice (personally I suspect that they are). But I do not know to what extent their actions and choices are dictated by their genetic make-up or other factors beyond their control, and so I do not know whether or to what extent they have free will. -As far as humans are concerned, I argued that if the environment and the universe might make our decisions dependent, why not also the given, uncontrollable elements of human beings too? You do not know what I mean by uncontrollable. I mean any part of us that directs our behaviour without our being conscious of it or able to change it ... e.g. certain physical / mental disorders, our brain cells, our whole genetic make-up. I think it is perfectly possible that such factors limit our freedom of will, but you have discounted them in your definition.-You don't seem to have too many objections, though, to my own definition (which, of course, does encompass internal constraints). The extra imponderable of consciousness, which I defined earlier, seems to me to be integral to the concept, but I agree that "one's" is too anthropic. How about: "an entity's conscious ability to make decisions independently of constraints beyond the control of that entity." (N.B. I'm only looking for a definition here ... whether you believe there is such a thing as an entity or as free will is a different matter.) Is this or is this not what we mean when we talk of "free will"?-Your reasoning leads you "to question the typical dualistic perception of the universe ... "There's me and then there is the rest of the universe."" That is precisely how I interpreted your argument ("human beings can't be separated from their environment and the universe, and therefore we can't separate the self"). I don't have a problem with such questioning, I agree with you completely that we should not "blindly assume the existence of free will", and like you I neither believe nor disbelieve in it. As regards waiting for a rational mechanism, I can't find one for consciousness, memory, emotion, imagination, will etc. Nothing but brain cells sparking off one another? What makes them spark? Some sort of immaterial me? Hardly rational, is it? (Sorry, but I can't discuss these things with you unless I think I'm me and I think you're you). So hey ho, I remain in rational limbo, but am happy to carry on feeling I have all these attributes. -You finish: "as an agnostic I try to avoid beliefs ... fail miserably of course." Great line. But your various references to our "anthropic" discussion suggest that you're trying to avoid being confined to your humanity. If you could really identify yourself with a brick or an amoeba or a duck-billed platypus, if you really knew the answers to all our questions, or if you really went through life not believing in anything, you'd probably be literally out of your mind. I wouldn't regard it as "miserable failure" that you're not.