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.