Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams
From: williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: A Figment of the Imagination ( 1/2 of life  - RLR )
Message-ID: <3518@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 12:56:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.3518
Posted: Thu Aug  8 12:56:57 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 03:07:03 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 78


	Rich:

	The analogy to unicorns is not a valid one. You are 
presuming that there doesn't exist something that would fit the 
descriptive name. For unicorns, this happens to be true. For free 
will, you have only been able to argue that the universe is 
essentially deterministic, which may or may not be the actual 
case.

1) Will implies a selection or a choice

2) Free implies that the choice is arbitrary

3) Natural selection is the process of determining the optimal 
alternative.

	This implies that there exists a best choice for 
everything in your deterministic universe. The optimal 
alternative will eventually be arrived at through painstaking 
process. We have reason to believe that this is what evolution 
is. OK, so let's say that the available evidence is highly in 
favor of the deterministic universe. For the moment I will 
concede this to you, and say that you are probably right.

	OK, so let's say that Natural selection does not have 
much freedom, seeing as it has to, by definition, have to make 
the optimal choice, of which there is only one. Being the product 
of natural selection, our physical makeups are more or less 
determined by the laws of evolution.

	Does this sound OK so far?

	Because nature is forced to make the best selection, this 
is the basis for stating that freedom doesn't exist. Our actions 
are determined by our history going back to the beginning of 
time.

	We are faced with one problem, however, that being that 
humans do not always make the best choice. Our physical makeup 
does not allow us to fully comprehend the consequences of our 
decisions. We often make mistakes.

	So then, free will implies a perception that a choice may 
be regarded as arbitrary. Although there does exist an optimal 
choice, it is unknown, and furthermore, unknowable.

	Free will therefore implies the ability to learn from 
mistakes. What may appear to be an arbitrary choice will later 
turn out to be either more optimal or less optimal. I will 
further state that because learning is intrinsically a trial and 
error process, free will is necessarily a requirement for 
intelligence. It manifests itself in one's perception that a 
choice of alternatives appears to be completely arbitrary.

	You could argue that free will is a figment of the 
imagination, and you would be right, but it does exist, as a 
figment of the imagination. It can thereby be stated that free 
will is a phenomenon that occurs within intelligent beings. It
describes an ability to perform trial and error experiments on 
what appear to be arbitrary alternatives.

	Now, can you suggest anything better to describe this 
phenomenon, or are you going to concede that this term is indeed 
useful. I know it sounds like a loaded question, and it is. I 
fail to see any other alternative.

	Before you go off and start dissecting an argument based 
on a figment of the imagination, remember that " will " is a 
human characteristic, and that " free will " should also describe 
a human characteristic. A figment of the imagination should be 
recognized as a valid entity within this context. ( context 
itself is a figment of the imagination )

	I don't think this will be as easy to argue around, not 
to say that you won't attempt to anyway.

						John.