Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: A Figment of the Imagination ( 1/2 of life  - RLR )
Message-ID: <1451@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 10:06:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1451
Posted: Fri Aug  9 10:06:21 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Aug-85 21:33:56 EDT
References: <3518@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 131

> 	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.  [WILLIAMS]

On the contrary, it's a perfectly valid analogy because the subject
of the words is irrelevant to the analogy.  If you find that something
you have defined, some word, does not represent a thing that exists
(e.g., some mythical creature/phenomenon), you can't just change the
definition to mean something else on the fly just because you feel
like it, just because you WANT a world in which centaurs, or unicorns,
or free wills, exist.

> 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.

Hardly.  Choice is not a straight line ruler.  It is more like an
incredibly complex lattice, where two very different choices of
very different values may not be quantifiably "better" or "worse"
than others.

> 	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?

No.  Because no one said that natural selection HAD to result in the
"best" or "optimal" result.  It simply results in its result.  What
determines this result?  All the circumstances and events of the
surrounding universe.  Even if you were able to isolate, say, the
solar system as a "closed system", do you have any idea how complex
the "predictive equations" would be to "determine" what *will* happen
on a reasonably large scale?  This has nothing to do with optimality.

> 	Because nature is forced to make the best selection, this 
> is the basis for stating that freedom doesn't exist.

Who said that nature was "forced" to do anything.  Nature is just a
natural flow, and a very complex one at that.

> Our actions are determined by our history going back to the beginning of 
> time.

OK, so...

> 	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.

Nature makes "mistakes", too.  "Mistakes" are only in the eye of the
mistaker, they are evaluated as mistakes because of the negative
impact they have.  My mistake (dropping a hundred dollar bill) might
be your good fortune.

> 	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.

1) There cannot be an "optimal" choice in all situations.  2) Yes,
free will is a "perception" that a choice is made "freely".  We
also perceive that a circle when viewed at an angle is an oval.
We also perceive incorrectly in numerous optical illusions.  Free
will is just that, sort of an internal optical illusion.

> 	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've just "pulled a Paul Torek", you just took the term "free will"
and applied it to a process that has nothing to do with "free will",
and sort of claimed "thus we have free will".  This is close to
what Paul and I have called "rational-evaluative analysis".

> 	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.

Figments of the imagination exist only within the individual person's
imagination, rather, they are REPRESENTED symbolically in that
person's 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.

It can thereby be stated that free will is a co-optical illusion that
takes place inside the minds of human beings and possibly other
organisms who have this REA capability.

> 	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.

I just did.  Thank you for the opportunity.

> 	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.

"Unicorn" SHOULD describe a real existing animal, shouldn't it?

> A figment of the imagination should be 
> recognized as a valid entity within this context. ( context 
> itself is a figment of the imagination )

See above.

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

I just did.
-- 
Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.
					Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr