quote: After two explanations of your argument, I'm still confused about what exactly you're argument is. In any case, I still don't see how you've proven that free will exists.
Tom and camus, let me take another go at it…
[Disclaimer: this is not supposed to be a “cute” story, I use some “harsh” elements in it, but I don’t intend to offend anyone. If you feel offended, stop reading, maybe I don’t deserve your time and attention for this.]
Picture this: (use your imagination):
Does it matter if I can speak Japanese? - working title
I am suminonA, a … random guy. You are Tea, a precocious girl. There are some other people too: Emm and Eff, two people that you’ve known since you were born, and that give you the best available free advice. They love you and you love them too. There is also Pea, a wise person, respected by many. When she speaks people listen to her. Then there is X, a dear but naïve friend of yours, and mine.
You learn form Emm and Eff that Pea knows me. And there are a few important things to know about me: 1) I am fluent in Japanese and I carry around a Samurai Sword at all times. 2) I am easily offended, especially by Japanese curses and insults, and I never forget anything. 3) When I’m offended, I get angry and chop off the hands (Kill Bill style ) of anyone who dares to utter such words.
[Question to ponder: Does my knowledge of Japanese language affect you?]
So Emm and Eff worn you, and advice you not to use Japanese words that you don’t know, especially when I’m around. And you understand and follow the advice. You decide that is the wise thing to be discreet about it. When I’m around, you never user Japanese words, even les curses. Actually, nobody ever as much as hints about my knowledge of Japanese in my presence. For a while.
But your friend X doesn’t care too much about the warnings, plus he’s very curious about the Samurai Sword. Yet at any time, neither you, nor X, or anybody for that matter, has ever seen the Sword I’m supposed to carry around with me. So X begins to hint about Japanese, he learns a few words form a friend of his, and starts to utter them over and over again. I never bother to show if I understand any of it, so X goes further. He buys a dictionary and learns more words, including some nasty curses and insults, just in case. Yet I never respond to any words in Japanese, and X grows angrier, he wants at least to see the Shiny Sword. So soon enough he begins to use the insults!
What do you do? Well, you rush to him and warn your dear friend X, that it is dangerous, talking like that in front of me. Still X doesn’t stop. And even more “unlikely”, I never seem to bother. So you suppose that X doesn’t really uses bad words, so you take the dictionary and check, and find out in surprise that the words really are curses and insults! Yet, I don’t bother and I don’t produce the Samurai Sword at all. So you think that I’m just testing X (and you too), that I’ll remember to chop off his hands later on, so you make sure not to repeat any of the Japanese words.
This goes on for a while, and every time X insists more and more to get me to “take out” the Sword. I never do. So finally X gives up, lets go of the idea and we all go on with our lives. But you don’t forget and worry that I might strike X at any time, because I never forget anything. And much less the insults. Then I go away, to live in a distant country, like New Zeeland, and you get to see me a lot on TV and such, but you know that I live far away.
Time passes and when least expected, X decides that the next smart thing to do is commit suicide and he goes for it. Everyone is sad at the funeral, but you really are just wandering: how come X went on with his life, and never got his hands cut off? You know very well what Emm and Eff said about me, and Pea corroborated the story on various further occasions so there is this thing bothering you… And finally you decide that maybe, just maybe, in order to punish X for his deeds, I “controlled” him in very subtle ways (for no one could prove that) and made him take his life. This would be a serious allegation, and as long as you have no hard proof, you can’t go around sharing your theory with Emm or Eff, even less Pea.
So you live the rest of your life wandering what is the explanation of all this, and just before any of it mattered anymore, you realize that your whole life you have (successfully) avoided to speak Japanese words.
-The end-
Final questions: Does the fact that Pea said that I speak Japanese, “controlled” you into never uttering Japanese words? Were you depraved of free will concerning this matter? Who controlled whom? Was X insane? What if I was never able to understand Japanese (as a matter of fact I've never said I did). Where does the free will enter this “story”.
Here is my answer:
I say that you haven’t been deprived of anything. There is free will all over this story: -You’ve chosen to take Emm’s and Eff’s advice, based on what Pea had told them. More to the point, you’ve chosen to take Pea’s words for facts. You could have done as X did, and care little about what Pea said. You didn’t. Following that choice, you never uttered Japanese words. - Emm and Eff knew that Pea might be wrong, but they decided to advise you, because Pea might have been right after all. They did it out of love for you. It was their choice to love you. - Pea didn’t have a clue about me, but she heard the “facts” from her teacher and promised to teach the others too, the “truth”. She could have said nothing, but it was her will to help others. -X was naïve, but as a curious boy as he was, he had a lot of fun, “defying” me, and meanwhile learned quite a lot of Japanese. Then, when life didn’t make too much sense for him, he decided to end it all. And he did. It was his choice.
This is how I see life, and the fact that I have not only the responsibility of my own choices, but also the responsibility to MAKE them.
For me, this kind of “story” and “interpretation” is the proof that there is free will. You might argue that maybe all happened inside the MATRIX, it was all an illusion, and that nobody ever had “free will”.
Well, these are the alternatives: a) there is no free will, but we can’t see that, so we have the illusion of if b) free will is real, and the responsibility is ours.
If I choose to believe (b), then I take the same amount of responsibility even if the (a) is true, because I could never make the difference. If you choose (a) then you leave the responsibility to others (most of the time never knowing to whom). But if (b) was actually the case, you wasted your life letting others control you.
If this doesn’t answer your question, and it can’t stand as a proof of the existence of free will, then I’m sorry I wasted your time. Remember, I don’t want to convince you, I just wanted to present my personal view/proof on the subject.
I choose to believe that here is no destiny. There is only free will. [I hope now you see WHY.]
posted
Do you actually think that analogy makes the core argument simpler?
*laugh* And the problem here is that I dispute whether or not you had any actual choice in the matter of whether or not to speak Japanese -- that, once you sincerely believed that speaking Japanese would result in your death, your actions were scripted by processes largely out of your conscious control.
Consider the latest study on the neurological pathways created by partisanship, in which people who are already mildly partisan are actually made more partisan by viewing evidence against their chosen faction, and become hostile to the source of the contrary evidence; as people become emotionally invested in their opinions, they subconsciously seek out worldviews to justify those opinions even in the face of direct evidence.
Do you believe this is an indication of free will? That you somehow choose to become hostile to, say, Fox News or the Village Voice because they present compelling evidence against one of your sacred cows?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you be happy if you suspected that the person who understood you perfectly could make you do anything at all they wanted?
It would probably be okay as long as two conditions are met: 1) I'm still freely choosing what to do, based on my own character and the inputs I receive from the world around me 2) I trust this being who controls me is not tricking me by sending me false or misleading inputs
For instance, when I watch TV I see ads for food that often make me hungry. The advertisers do not know me perfectly, but know enough about me to realize that they can get me to buy more food if I see it on TV. They are, in that sense, controlling me. But I am also controlling myself - I feely choose when to get food. They just happen to know what will make me freely choose to do so. And if they lie about their product, it would be problematic, but the problem would not be that they are controlling me - the problem would be the particularly unethical method they are using to control me: tricking me into doing something they know I would not do if I had a more accurate understanding. If they don't lie, I have no problem with them controlling me, as long as I am making the final choice, and as long as I retain the ability to alter that choice (even if they know perfectly well that I won't do so.)
If someone other than God could control me absolutely, I would be concerned that they might trick me. However, that would be far preferable than acting randomly and irrationally in order to avoid ever being controlled. And it certainly wouldn't be a level of concern that would lead me to conclude that my choices are meaningless - which is what many seem to think a lack of free will implies.
Chess is another example. In chess, both players attempt to control the other's decisions. This does not make a chess player's decisions meaningless, though - they are still deciding their own actions, no matter how much their opponent is manipulating them. The only thing they really have to fear is being tricked into falling into a trap they could not forsee.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I trust this being who controls me is not tricking me by sending me false or misleading inputs
What would constitute a "false" input? If they have arranged the universe so your inputs are all REAL, but are deliberately calculated to cause you to act in a certain way, is that better than if they're sending you "false" inputs?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Do you actually think that analogy makes the core argument simpler?
Yes. If you see what all that “stands” for, you might agree I was oversimplifying the “program”.
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson:
*laugh* And the problem here is that I dispute whether or not you had any actual choice in the matter of whether or not to speak Japanese -- that, once you sincerely believed that speaking Japanese would result in your death, your actions were scripted by processes largely out of your conscious control.
Ok, you say that there are some processes controlling me, that are out of my conscious control. I answered that at the end of my last (way too longish) post [see the alternatives (a) and (b)]. My arguing point is that I and only I can decide what I sincerely believe. That’s where the free will act. All that follows after that is just “reason” (for a sane person, not true for the insane ). We let our beliefs control our life, but we choose those beliefs. [The proof of that in my story is X’s existence, defying Tea’s belief and not being punished for it, because actually Tea’s belief was misplaced.]
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson:
That you somehow choose to become hostile to, say, Fox News or the Village Voice because they present compelling evidence against one of your sacred cows?
Defending one’s beliefs is “instinctual” and circumstantial (as in your partnership example). But being able to CHANGE YOUR MIND on any given subject, that proves free will (IMHO)
quote: My arguing point is that I and only I can decide what I sincerely believe
and that's the part that I would disagree with.
When you say that there is no way for you to decide anything for/by yourself (not even the belief part) then my arguments hit an unbreakable stone-wall. I can't fight that. Only you can. [If I'd convince you otherwise I would be proving your point]
posted
Has anyone seen the movie Primer? There's an interesting situation in the movie that I will try to briefly relate.
Abe has acquired the ability to travel back in time and shows his friend Aaron this ability. Aaron eventually realizes that Abe can go back in time and change the life that Aaron will live. In fact, it may have already happened and there would be no way for Aaron to know it. There would be no way to know what life he lost by any changes that Abe may have made earlier in time. In fact, Abe could keep going back in time and keep making slight changes with each of those changes eventually affecting the decisions that Aaron makes. This troubles Aaron greatly, the realization that even though he's still making decisions in life, he ultimately has no control over what happens because Abe can keep going back and changing things unitl Aaron does what Abe wants, and Aaron would never know it.
Tres, presumably you would be comfortable with this hypothetical situation if it were happening to you?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A, I do agree that the choices we make are made on our own. It's the idea that our choices are the product of set rules and laws governing the way our brains receive and process stored and new information that, to me, implies the lack of free will. The fact that we can't understand all of the complexity of all the processes doesn't change the fact that they are all still governed by rules. The idea that there may be a higher power controlling or manipulating everything doesn't make the idea of free will any better.
It might be that we are defining free will in different ways, which is causing the difference in opinion.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What would constitute a "false" input? If they have arranged the universe so your inputs are all REAL, but are deliberately calculated to cause you to act in a certain way, is that better than if they're sending you "false" inputs?
Yes.
A false input would be one that deliberately leads me to mistaken conclusions about reality, like giving me a hallucination that I think exists but does not. This is bad because after I make my decision, I will have to confront reality, and will find I have maken the wrong decision. In contrast, if you change reality itself, then you are merely changing the right answer to be the one you want it to be - so I would still be choosing the right answer, and would thus have no problem.
For instance, making me conclude Big Macs are healthy when they are not is tricking me, and causes trouble because I may then decide to eat Big Macs and will confront reality when I gain weight. In contrast, changing the reality of Big Macs so they actually are healthy is not a problem. It would get the same result (me eating Big Macs) but would not be a problem because I have now chosen the right answer, rather than a mistaken answer.
quote:Tres, presumably you would be comfortable with this hypothetical situation if it were happening to you?
No, the problem with that (and other time travel examples) is that you are really killing one Aaron and replacing him with another. I'm fine with the idea that you did things in my history to make me who I am. But if that entails destroying an alternate me who already existed in some previous future (if that even makes sense), I think it's pretty immoral.
It could be troubling, I guess, to think that you are just what someone else made you to be. However, I think that's a bit of a confusion - it shouldn't be troubling. For one thing, that's what all of us actually are - whether God or Abe exists or not to design us. We are all made by the world around us, even if by accident. That's not a bad thing, because despite that fact, you are still yourself, and are still deciding how to live your life.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the theory of a multiverse that diverges infinitely because of quantum uncertainties? Such a model argues that we can (and do) make alternate choices, but our present conciousness sticks with only one of those infinite possible realities.
I'm not a believer in such a multiverse, though I don't necessarily *not* believe in it.
I guess I am trying to figure out in what sort of situation "free will" could exist in a form everyone could agree upon. The answer: "free will is impossible no matter what the hypothetical situation" just doesn't seem right to me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess I am trying to figure out in what sort of situation "free will" could exist in a form everyone could agree upon. The answer: "free will is impossible no matter what the hypothetical situation" just doesn't seem right to me.
I agree, and that's one theory that works. Another is the one I mentioned earlier about consciousness determining ultimate reality on the quantum level. There are others, like the idea of a metaphysical existence, or soul. But since I have a hard time believing a lot of these things, I have a hard time believing in the idea of free will, though, I'm not ruling it out completely.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My arguing point is that I and only I can decide what I sincerely believe.
And I reject this, because I think what you sincerely believe is determined -- at least in part -- by an additional host of things external to your self.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:My arguing point is that I and only I can decide what I sincerely believe.
And I reject this, because I think what you sincerely believe is determined -- at least in part -- by an additional host of things external to your self.
But you see, there is the crux of the paradox (if free will doesn’t exist): Why would those external forces/things make me sincerely believe that they don’t really exist? I choose to break the paradox by stating that there is no destiny, there is just free will.
A.
PS: I’ve just watched (again) the movie “The Usual Suspects”. And there is one quote that seems to coincide:
quote: (by “Kayser Zose”) The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
Do you expect me to break away from one program, just to replace it with another?
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: What is my consciousness worth if I agree to the idea that I’m being manipulated by some unconscious (external) forces?
Are you planning on selling it? If so I bet you could fetch a pretty penny on eBay.
But seriously, I think it boils down to a matter of definition. If you define consciousness as an ability to observe and analyze your suroundings, then it doesn't really matter what you believe about free will. You will still be able to see and hear and think in the same sense that you were ever able to do these things.
If you define consciousness differently, then you may run into some difficulty.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is my consciousness worth if I agree to the idea that I’m being manipulated by some unconscious (external) forces?
The same thing it is worth if you aren't. Why would being controlled by external forces imply your consciousness is worth any less?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: It might be that we are defining free will in different ways, which is causing the difference in opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Friday: But seriously, I think it boils down to a matter of definition. If you define consciousness as an ability to observe and analyze your suroundings, then it doesn't really matter what you believe about free will. You will still be able to see and hear and think in the same sense that you were ever able to do these things.
If you define consciousness differently, then you may run into some difficulty.
Yes, I’m convinced that it all comes down to a matter of definition.
camus, for you “free will” is just a concept that you can rule out using arguments like timetravel. For me it is a matter of real life that I have to face every single waking moment of my life. And it has to do with responsibility. I sincerely believe that I have full responsibility for my actions and choices. And I take that responsibility.
The analogous example is the “destiny/deity” part of the issue. I don’t believe that my life is controlled by destiny, nor by whatever deity has been invented. For me those are just some concepts. So it’s easy for me to rule them out. But there are a lot of people (lots and lots and lots) that need to believe in those concepts as real, so their lives can have a meaning. And they won’t accept any theoretical arguments to rule them out. (And I’m not saying that’s a bad thing!).
I don’t want to force other people to see the things as I see them. But the fact that different people, brought up in virtually the same environment (now that information can travel freely), can have such different sets of beliefs, is for me proof enough that there is no “Universal Program” to rule as all.
A.
PS: I’m conscious that I wrote these lines, and no other different person. And I take full responsibility for it.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The same thing it is worth if you aren't. Why would being controlled by external forces imply your consciousness is worth any less?
Because that’s what being self-aware is all about. I “know” (I have at least the most compelling impression) that I am myself, and not somebody else (who in his/hers turn thinks the same). And so, if I don’t have free will, and some external (and unconscious!) forces control me, then my individual existence is meaningless, plus I have no reason to take full responsibility for my life, actions and choices.
If I were to live on a deserted island in the middle of the ocean (that is - by myself) then the issue (of responsibility) would be quite irrelevant. But I live on a deserted island (named Earth) in the middle of the ocean (called the Universe), and not by myself but within a human society. Here the responsibility issue does matter, IMHO.
A.
PS: Do you (not just Tresopax) take full responsibility?
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And so, if I don’t have free will, and some external (and unconscious!) forces control me, then my individual existence is meaningless, plus I have no reason to take full responsibility for my life, actions and choices.
Perhaps, but the lack of free will would be the problem, not the control by external forces. Those two things are not necessarily the same.
What if I DO have free will and I DO control my own actions, but those actions are also controlled and manipulated by outside forces? Why would that imply not taking full responsibility? I'm still choosing and in control of my own actions, after all.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Perhaps, but the lack of free will would be the problem, not the control by external forces. Those two things are not necessarily the same.
Language is such a traitorous tool. I never said they were the same. Let’s use some logic
[I'll use "=>" as the sign for implication.] (a)= I have free will (b)= some external forces control me [clarification: NOT(b) = there are no external forces controlling me] (c)= I have full responsibility for my actions and choices.
Premises: 1) (a) = (c) [it is my personal choice to advocate that as true] 2) NOT(b) =>(a) [that’s part of my definition of free will] 3) (b) =>NOT(a) [argument used to prove that free will doesn’t exist]
Note that 2) is not equivalent to 3) !! [ 2) is equivalent to: 2’) “NOT(a)=>(b)” ]
So: 1) is equivalent with 1’) “NOT(a)=NOT(c)” From 1’) AND 3) => 4) “(b) =>NOT(c)”
What I argue is the proposition 4). I mean I don’t like to see that as true, which is what those advocating NOT(a) seem to do. If they accept that (b) =>(c) then I’m happy and I have no more contra-argument.
So, what I said was: “NOT(a) => (b) =>NOT(c)”, which stands within the premises. I like to believe that NOT(b) is true, but that is not necessary for this conclusions. I never stated that (a) = NOT(b) should be true.
quote:What if I DO have free will and I DO control my own actions, but those actions are also controlled and manipulated by outside forces? Why would that imply not taking full responsibility? I'm still choosing and in control of my own actions, after all.
Your question is: “Why [(a) AND (b)] => NOT(c)?” My answer: (a) AND (b) => (c) too. [Note: that is not true if all the 3 premises are true, therefore I say premise 3 is false, hence my post]
I hope you see that I’m not contradicting you at any point whatsoever.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) of anyone who dares to utter such words. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
If you see what all that “stands” for, you might agree I was oversimplifying the “program”.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
) the movie “King Arthur” by Antoine Fuqua.![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
