Information and free will (Introduction)

by romansh , Wednesday, October 12, 2011, 03:37 (4770 days ago) @ dhw

A diligent search has uncovered Romansh’s early definition of free will as: “the ability to act on or make choices independently of the environment or of the universe.” Since the universe comprises everything, this defines free will out of existence. My own definition is “an entity’s conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints” (the constraints being Nature and/or the situation, and factors connected with the decision-making process itself, e.g. our genetic make-up).

I am aware and agree my definition might be too all encompassing, that does not mean it is invalid or does it?

Your definition needs work I think, what does nature imply - genetics, bacteria, chemistry, England's pastures green?

Even your own definition involves making choices, so how can you do that without being aware of the items of information between which you are choosing? Are we only able to act when we sleepwalk? By consciousness, I mean awareness of one’s own thoughts, perceptions, actions and environment. I agree with you that if we do not have free will, consciousness, the self etc. are not what they seem (because they seem to constitute elements of an identity over which we think we have a degree of control). But how does that invalidate the concept? Maybe consciousness IS what it seems.

My computer running a spreadsheet makes choices all the time, depending on the keyboard inputs. You might say it is not conscious; while I might have some sympathy for this point of view, I do ask is not the computer, in some rudimentary way, aware of the key strokes and its memory registers?

Consciousness is indeed “a poorly understood concept”, and nobody knows how it works. Exactly the same applies to the will. As for “what are we free from?” my answer is: from constraints other than those that are beyond our control (see below). All we know is that an element of our consciousness is able to examine information and make decisions in accordance with our conscious interpretation of that information. That element is a part of our overall identity. From here, allowing for the unavoidable Nature/situation constraints, you can follow two lines of argument: 1) this element can never be free from influences beyond its control (genetic, educational, parental etc.) so there is no free will; or 2) these influences help to fashion the identity of which the will is a part. The identity is what you’ve ironically called the “homunculus” in the brain, and it’s the sum total of our genetic make-up and all the influences and experiences we’ve been subject to. The will is therefore able to make its decisions in accordance with the current state of the “I”. I am what I am, and there are no constraints apart from those of Nature and/or the situation. That is what constitutes my/the will's freedom. However, all this is far too general. The degree of freedom (if we have it) will depend on the nature of the situation that requires a decision. I will offer you an example at the end.

Beyond our control this is eactly what we are trying ascertain whether we do control (our poorly understood) wills. So for me your definition sort of reduces to will that is free except what they are not free from.

Excuse the position of the prepositions.

You might as well say that if I was not as I am, I would be different. My decision-making ability depends on the situation as it is, on Nature as it is, on the universe as it is. But within those unalterable constraints, I AM as I am, and the second line of argument still applies: my decisions depend on me.

So you are agreeing that we are caused by the universe?

No doubt some decisions will depend on some of this information. Even with my second line of argument, I wouldn’t like to draw clear borderlines, because each situation will be different. So here is a concrete example, in which none of the above seem likely to influence my decision. The choice is between a must-see film and a vital cricket match on TV. My wife dislikes cricket, but she generously says it’s up to me...So the homunculus consciously weighs up the pleasure (and importance) of the cricket against the pleasure (and importance) of pleasing my wife...Now tell me (a) why consciousness is not integral to the process, and (b) given this information (the constraints of the situation), in what way will my decision be forced on me by influences beyond my control?

Again I would argue it is incumbent on those arguing for free will to show the wills and and hence choices are independent of said information. Appealing to quatum indeterminism won't cut it for me either as an argument.

The homunculus argument (even when expressed as a soul) is the most difficult to defend. The homunculus needs to get its information from somewhere and it too gets its information from its immediate environment and therefore is dependent. This is not freedom in anyway.

The only way to get "free" will is to redefine it so that it is compatible somehow. in my opion