- #106
moving finger
- 1,689
- 1
Then I believe there is a fundamental problem with your concept of free will.Paul Martin said:Here I respectfully disagree. I tried to be careful in writing my conditions, and after reviewing them in the light of your suggestion, I stand by what I wrote. In my judgment, the 'ability to know' is the most fundamental of all of the aspects of consciousness. I suspect that most, if not all, the rest can be derived from the ability to know.
By "the agent knows" (as opposed to "the agent believes that it knows") I assume that you mean "the agent knows infallibly"? ie that the agent's knowledge is guaranteed to be 100% absolutely correct with no possibility of it being wrong?
I believe that such infallible epistemic "knowledge" is in principle not possible for an agent. IMHO therefore this "necessary condition" could never be met.
This to me seems a contradiction.Paul Martin said:I agree with the fallibility of foreknowledge. I agree that in a strict sense it is not possible to infallibly know much if anything about future options. But I insist that the conscious agent must know *that* there are options available in order for there to be free will.
Part of the "foreknowledge" of a future option is actually to "know whether it will be available or not". If infallible foreknowledge of future options is not possible (as you agree), then it seems to me that it follows trivially that the agent cannot know infallibly whether any particular future option will be available or not, ie it cannot know infallibly *that* there are options available. It can "believe that it knows" (I agree), but it cannot “know infallibly”.
Such an action may indeed not qualify as free will under your definition of free will, but your definition is not the only possible definition, and as I said above I do not see how your necessary condition (2) can ever be met if you insist on infallible knowledge.Paul Martin said:If the conscious agent only …. believed that there were options, then an action might be induced on that basis. But I would disqualify such an action as a free will action …...
My same reply as above.Paul Martin said:I would not agree to weaken this condition by including the parenthetical phrase for the same reason as above. I think I weakened it enough by including the "at least something about" and "at least some of" qualifiers.
OK, please rest assured I am not trying to pull any “tricks” here. Let me provide my definition of determinism :Paul Martin said:I am on thin ice here because I am never comfortable with any word ending in "ism". I just don't understand well enough what those words mean, and there is usually a society of specialists who claim ownership of those kinds of words, which together is enough to make me hesitant.
Definition of Determinism : The universe, or any self-contained part thereof, is said to be evolving deterministically if it has only one possible state at time t1 which is consistent with its state at some previous time t0 and with all the laws of nature.
OK, I believe my definition agrees completely with this.Paul Martin said:But since you asked me, I'll try to answer your question.
First, let me define what I would mean if I were to use the term 'determinism'. To me, determinism means that the evolution of states over which determinism holds can follow only a single course. That is, there can be only one outcome in a deterministic system. In principle, this can be tested by restoring the initial conditions of the system and letting it evolve again. As many times as this is done, the outcome will always be the same.
Interesting.Paul Martin said:If my necessary conditions for free will obtain, and you ran this "playback" thought experiment several times, the conscious agent could choose different options for the same conditions in different runs, thus producing different outcomes.
Why do you say the agent “could choose different options for the same conditions in different runs”?
And is what you say here derived logically from your stated definition of free will and necessary conditions for free will (in which case can you show how it follows), or is it simply an intuitive feeling that you have?
Some things to ponder on :
If the world is operating deterministically then the agent is also covered by this, hence it follows that the agent could NOT in fact "choose different options for the same conditions in different runs".
Thus if you are suggesting that the agent can "choose different options for the same conditions in different runs" this would seem to imply that the world (at least the part that is concerned with the agent's choice) is not operating deterministically.
But if the agent's choice is not determinisitic, then what is it? Indeterministic?
Would you care to explain how the introduction of indeterminism into the agent's method of choice endows that agent with "free will"?
Thanks!
MF
Last edited: