From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: matthew's and Jim's views of free will
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:54:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <zlsiida.1026@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>matthew seemed to say he has free will even if somebody else can predict his 
>actions, as long as they don't tell him they've made the prediction.
>I'm not keen on that...
>First I'd like to dump the word 'prediction' - it might imply 'probably 
>accurate guess' to some people.
>Then I'd like to dump the person who makes this prediction - because what I'
>m interested in is:
>Are your actions predetermined by the laws of physics as applied to the 
>biology of humans (in particular their brains and hence minds)?  If they are 
>then you have no free will, whatever it actually feels like to you.
>
>Jim seemed to be saying that this is the case, though he says 'free will' is 
>a meaningless concept.  I guess that makes him a 'strong determinist'.
>As he doesn't like the term 'free will', let me ask again in slightly 
>different terms, just to check I've read him right:
>Do we ever have a totally unconstrained choice of actions?  eg.  When we 
>ponder a choice of 2 actions, are we really choosing or is the choice and 
>the exact path of our pondering on the choice totally predetermined?

"Predetermined" and "determinism" tend to call in certain views of of
physics and the ability to predict future state given the state at
some past point, which I don't necessarily subscribe to.  However, I
do believe that our actions, including thoughts and choices are
determined by the laws of physics and biology.  Restricting discussion
to relatively high-level ideas, I do think choices are determined by
our past experience and current state and understanding.

>If Jim's right, then our path through life is a one way single lane road 
>with no junctions, and whether or not we enjoy the scenery or hate it is 
>also totally predetermined.  In fact, this posting was already predicted by 
>the configuration of the Big Bang.  We're reduced to a spark of 
>consciousness trapped in a vehicle we can't control.  Even leaving by 
>suicide wouldn't actually be our own choice.

This would be one way of interpreting things, but it's pretty
subjective.  As you travel down that single lane road, you experience
all the junctions, and experience choosing the next turn.  The choice
is not constrained by external events, just by the past: do you really
want to live without being influenced by the past?  Do you want the
freedom to come downstairs and stick your hand into a gas flame *YET
AGAIN*?  Do you ever want to base your choice in a given situation on
complete randomness?

>I don't want this to be true.
>I'd like somebody to tell me it isn't.

From the FAQ:

     Even if lack of life-after-death does make life seem pointless, so what?
     Are we supposed to believe something because it helps us psychologically
     [i.e., is comforting], rather than because it's true?

     You are implying that whether there actually is a God is not relevant
     to believing in one, so long as believing in one provides comfort.  You
     are asking that we put comfort ahead of truth.

Different issue, same answer.  Things are as they are; our experience
of making choices is as it is.  If this is an illusion, in some sense,
so what?  It might be nicer to believe that we are put here for some
great purpose, if the universe were created specifically for our
benefit, it might be more interesting if there were gods and spirits
walking abroad, it might be nice to live beyond death, to fly
unassisted, etc.

>Without invoking God in any form, because the only evidence of God 
>acceptable to me is direct experience of His presence

I guess I feel same way about "free will".
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism