The Cromwell Institute

I think I've developed a fairly articulate opinion or two about free will, but I've not yet been able to find someone to seriously disagree with me yet. I even did a philosophy unit this year and no-one disagreed with my assertions on the subject. Because of this, what conviction I have in these ideas feels uncertain and unearned. So I would like to kick it around with you guys, as you are a pretty tough philosophical crowd.

Assertion 1: Different people have different amounts [is amount a good word to use in this context? I think you guys know what I mean though] of free will, depending on how much knowledge they have access to. I mean, no-one is truly free to make a decision if they are aware of only one of their options, or is even ignorant of their ability to make decisions of their own [eg someone totally dependent on another]. Therefore, Knowledge = Free Will. Is this a coherent assertion?

Assertion 2: People do not have free will to do things, only to decide to do things. By this, I mean I believe that I have the free will to decide to continue typing, but circumstances beyond my control could prevent that, i.e. power failure. As I see it, free will exists, but it is only the free will to try, not to do. Again, how valid is this assertion?
Cheers,
TCI

Plump-DJ

Interesting take on things. I've never quite seen a good "mechanism" if you will for free will but this looks like a start.

I'm not at all up to scratch on the free will vs determinism arguments myself btw.


Plump

sweep

"I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act." G.K. Chesterton

In my opinion it is valid if you can hit the dart board. you don't necessarily have to be very accurate, but it helps when you can cut through all the crap, know what i mean?

you could have strengthened this with an example but since it's an 'assertion', i'll let you off. E.G.

"A horse was tied outside a shop in a narrow chinese village street. Whenever anyone would try to walk by, the horse would kick him. Before long, a small crowd of villagers had gathered near the shop, arguing about how best to get past the dangerous horse. Suddenly, someone came running. "The Old master is coming!" he shouted. "He'll know what to do!"

The crowd watched eagerly as the Old master came around the corner, saw the horse, turned, and walked down another street."

Cows are also clever:

"Freedom may also be a case of not acting. In the face of obstacles a person will remain obstinate, and refuse to conquer. For example, for many years the Blue Mountains in Australia were impassable; a route could not be found. When eventually the mountains were conquered, the settlers were puzzled to find massive herds of cows on the other side. These cows had been lost to the very first colonists, but they had not conquered the mountains consciously, they had simply walked around them (Bryson, 2000)."


i think that trying is a matter of competence, which depends on knowledge (your first assertion) so i would tend to agree with your second notion.

Bear in mind that our ability depends upon what we create. If i create a wall i can climb over it and have the freedom to learn. If i build a plane, i can move in the sky. If i put my dog on a lead i stop it from moving freely, yet i give it the option of choking on the collar or not choking. It also has the freedom to be led.

"Do not conquer the world with force, for force only causes resistance. Thorns spring up when an army passes. Years of misery follow a great victory. Do only what needs to be done, Without using violence." from Benjamin Hoffs: The Tao of Pooh. (methuen books)

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: sweet as a nut ]</p>

Bill

You are by no means the first person to notice that there is a relationship between knowledge and freedom. Let me give you a classic quotation from the Book of John, 8:31-32: Of course, this is almost oxymoronic, as the Christian leadership needs to actually suppress the truth in order to actually enslave the masses to abide by the will of those leaders. Anybody who actually knows the truth will reject the myth(s) of Jesus, and at that point, they will truly be free of the demands of religious dogmatism.

But of course, that is a debate for another thread. My intention here is to demonstrate that the relationship you note between knowledge and freedom is not a new idea at all, but a venerable argument which you've somewhat warmed-over.

==========

While I respect and admire the above view of the relationship between knowledge and freedom, I do think that it relies upon an ambiguity in what we really mean when we say that we are "free." Knowledge expands the range of possible choices, but the whole idea of "free will" is a debate over whether we really have much of a choice at all.

In other words, the real philosophical question involving free will is the question of whether our actions are entirely governed by the principles of causation (in other words, the question amounts to: is what we do in any given situation entirely governed by the principle of cause and effect, or is there some degree of indeterminancy, however slight, which gives "us," whatever we conceive "us" to mean, the opportunity to make a choice that is totally independent of causation).

When the question is properly phrased in that way (are our actions entirely governed by the principles of cause and effect), then I believe the answer becomes obvious: we do not have any real free will because our actions most certainly ARE entirely governed by the principles of cause and effect.

The state of our knowledge enters things as one of the causes of the action(s) we take, not as a factor in the exercise of our free will (which does not exist in the first place, because we are merely instrumentalities of the causes which set us into motion).

== Bill

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]</p>

sweep

'undoubtably' bill, cause is necessary in order for us to have a choice. With out any form of prior determination, action isn't possible. Without action, what is left?

Also we are free to conceive- i may find smoking to be aversive and avoid smokers like the plague. Then again, i can re-evaluate the situation, again getting down to relative causative factors, even so, necessary for those choices to exist. that girl i like, smokes, for instance; an overriding factor as far as an aversion for smoke goes.

try conceiving this now. I pat myself on the head- why? because i am demonstrating free will? In this instance, yes. i pick my nose, i turn my head. Oh dear! never mind. determinism AND free will? one and the same?

Ted Hoffman

TCI,
The first thing I would like you to do is define exactly what free will is (according to you). Because your arguments imply you espouse the theological paradigm of free will (which I beleive was the brainchild of Epicurus).

sweep

free will: possible means by which one can negotiate parameters laid down within a specific framework.

no one will, can therefor(e)? be alike&gt;

even to define free will, one must depart from ambiguity and malleability, which encompasses depth- and descend into the world of specificity, which also imposes parameters on organisation, creating boundaries as to the 'is' and 'is not'. This is where people can get stuck... if we all agreed on free will it would have slipped out of our hands... i don't want to put my finger on 'it' as to do so is futile and would take an inestimable number of libraries to fill.

DRFseven

Knowledge consists of "facts", which can be contradictory between people. For instance, you may know we have free will, while I know we don't.

Regarding relationship between knowledge and freedom; consider the following. If I have a lot of knowledge about electicity and wiring, I am much more constrained in my ability to wire a ceiling light in my home than if I had no knowledge. With no knowledge, I am able to wire it in any old way I choose. I probably won't work, but that has nothing to do with the freedom to wire it.

It's the same with anything. If I have no knowledge of where I am in the forest, I am more free to wander around trying to find my way out than if I know I should be heading south. The act of choosing depends on constraints.

raistlinjones

Bill,

You state that "we do not have any real free will because our actions most certainly ARE entirely governed by the principles of cause and effect". What evidence do you have for this? If this is true, why can't we predict human behavior in the same way that we predict how objects (like billiard balls) will interact with each other?

As far as the original posting, I'm not so sure I buy that knowledge is necessary for free will. I think belief is more likely to be the necessary factor you are looking for, even if that belief is wrong.

Here's an example. Suppose I want to fly. I believe there are two options - that I can take an airplane, or that I can just flap my arms. I obviously don't have knowledge that the second is an option; in fact, I really can't fly by that method. But if I have the belief that I can use that method, then I have the free will to flap my arms to try to fly.

Maybe you're saying now "well, yeah, obviously, but you're talking about possible options of solving a specific problem. I'm talking about specific actions. After all, don't you need to know that you can flap your arms in order to try to use that method to fly?" If so, then I have an answer for you - no, not at all. Assuming I've chosen the "flap your arms" method, as long as I believe I can flap my arms, I can try to do so. If I don't have arms, I won't succeed, and I won't have had knowledge that the option wasn't really available, but I can still TRY to do it. Which is all I can ever do anyway, if this quote is true - "free will exists, but it is only the free will to try, not to do."

The Cromwell Institute

Thanks for all the replies!

Intensity - I guess I consider free will to be having options - to be able to decide things on your own, for your own reasons. I am not familiar with the works of Epicurus.

DRFseven: That's a really interesting point. I never thought of it like that. I guess what I meant is that people have differing degrees of free will depending on how many options they are aware of. In some cases, your electrician example for instance, your free will is limited only by your imagination if you are ignorant of what works and what doesn't in such a situation.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: The Cromwell Institute ]</p>