Is there a workable defintion of free will?

[barehl]

I've seen a number of arguments against free will but they seem to all include a definition that is self-contradictory. I don't really have a background in philosophy so perhaps there is a definition that does work that I haven't heard of yet.

Even Harris' arguments seem to have an obvious flaw, or at least it seems obvious to me. If I were having a conversation with Harris about his book and his views on free will, I guess I would ask what the Michelson-Morley experiment would be. They tested a hypothesis about ether wind and failed to detect it. This failed experiment showed that ether wind didn't exist. A similar experiment would be the attempt to detect proton decay. Harris didn't describe such a test in his book.

So, what would the equivalent be for free will? What is it that a person who has free will could do, but someone without free will could not do? If this can be stated then presumably the experiment could be performed and the issue could be settled. On the other hand, if such an experiment cannot be described then perhaps the definition is the problem.

 

[Aridas]

I've seen a number of arguments against free will but they seem to all include a definition that is self-contradictory. I don't really have a background in philosophy so perhaps there is a definition that does work that I haven't heard of yet.

Even Harris' arguments seem to have an obvious flaw, or at least it seems obvious to me. If I were having a conversation with Harris about his book and his views on free will, I guess I would ask what the Michelson-Morley experiment would be. They tested a hypothesis about ether wind and failed to detect it. This failed experiment showed that ether wind didn't exist. A similar experiment would be the attempt to detect proton decay. Harris didn't describe such a test in his book.

So, what would the equivalent be for free will? What is it that a person who has free will could do, but someone without free will could not do? If this can be stated then presumably the experiment could be performed and the issue could be settled. On the other hand, if such an experiment cannot be described then perhaps the definition is the problem.

Well... honestly, the first thing that comes to mind after reading the title is "Yes, but which version of free will are you actually interested in?" Once that's answered, you should be most of the way to making a "workable" definition. There are multiple notably different things that free will's been used to describe and address, with a number of people accidentally or intentionally conflating them invalidly. As for testing... it's going to be effectively impossible to actually seriously test just about any of them, more because of the level of uncertainty required to be meaningfully addressed for it than anything else. Get a proper working Theory of Everything, and we can work with that to give a reasonable, though still probably uncertain, answer for the more abstract forms. Add to that a completely accurate mechanistic description of how consciousness works and that might remove much more of the remaining uncertainty. Much less is only of somewhat unreliable value. The closest thing to a current feasible test for any of them would probably be using a lie detector test to ask if an action was done under duress and also against one's desire, for some of the most socially relevant forms, and the accuracy of memory and lie detecting tests has been shown to be... far less than perfect, though still far better than nothing.

 

[The_Animus]

If all the actions people take are the result of an extremely complex equation based upon a series of variables (genetics, environment, past experiences, brain chemistry, etc).

Then free will would be the ability, somehow, for a person to take an action contrary to the result of that equation.

As for testing, I don't think we're currently capable. Accurately calculating the result of such an equation is basically impossible for us for the foreseeable future, and how would we even know for sure if we were calculating it correctly?

If we could calculate the equation and find the expected action, and then the person did a contrary action, how would we be able to determine if it was really free will or if the original expected action was faulty because we aren't able to calculate it correctly?

I'm not sure this is a question that can ever actually be solved

 

[surreptitious57]

The definition of free will is the freedom to choose between freely realisable alternatives though it would be hard to test for
Because the definition includes choices which might be rejected for moral reasons. Now that raises the interesting question
of whether or not free will includes choices that are entirely possible but morally unacceptable. And I would say that it does
as free will is not limited to just choices one agrees with even though they are the only ones that one would ideally consider

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The definition of free will is the freedom to choose between freely realisable alternatives though it would be hard to test for
Because the definition includes choices which might be rejected for moral reasons. Now that raises the interesting question
of whether or not free will includes choices that are entirely possible but morally unacceptable. And I would say that it does
as free will is not limited to just choices one agrees with even though they are the only ones that one would ideally consider

I've tended to call that encumbered free will.

As The_Animus pointed out, there's a lot of variables weighing down our actions and preempting some flights of fancy. Some of these are physical reality limitations, some are psycho-social. They are all a result of observations (or relayed observations). We engage in acts of encumbered free will without even thinking about it. The big free will decisions are when we defy the base programming, when we have no rational basis for leaning the way we feel like leaning (and know we don't) and yet...persist.

Now, the problem is a lot of times we think we're engaging in an act of free will and it's simply an unknown (but "rational") basis.

 

[Loss Leader]

So, what would the equivalent be for free will? What is it that a person who has free will could do, but someone without free will could not do? .

Even if someone had perfect free-will, his/her own bodies would betray them. One cannot will the heart not to beat or the eye not to blink. A person can't choose to walk on water or fly unaided.

I don't see any test that could be done.


ETA: Just read The Animus' post again. That's what I meant.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Anyway .. I understand free will in kinda practical sense .. free of obvious obstruction. Drug addict won't have entirely free will. Normal person will have it. When you go deeper, the term will quickly loose any practicality. Determinism of the universe is non-testable, and so is determinism of will.

Sometimes, when you can't define something, it will show up you didn't really need the term at all ..

 

[Chanakya]

Is there a workable definition of free will?

I've seen a number of arguments against free will but they seem to all include a definition that is self-contradictory. I don't really have a background in philosophy so perhaps there is a definition that does work that I haven't heard of yet.

Even Harris' arguments seem to have an obvious flaw, or at least it seems obvious to me. If I were having a conversation with Harris about his book and his views on free will, I guess I would ask what the Michelson-Morley experiment would be. They tested a hypothesis about ether wind and failed to detect it. This failed experiment showed that ether wind didn't exist. A similar experiment would be the attempt to detect proton decay. Harris didn't describe such a test in his book.

So, what would the equivalent be for free will? What is it that a person who has free will could do, but someone without free will could not do? If this can be stated then presumably the experiment could be performed and the issue could be settled. On the other hand, if such an experiment cannot be described then perhaps the definition is the problem.

Our ability to have acted differently than we actually did at some point, all other factors remaining the same.

But sorry, can't be tested. In theory perhaps, but not in practice.

 

[Chanakya]

Even if someone had perfect free-will, his/her own bodies would betray them. One cannot will the heart not to beat or the eye not to blink. A person can't choose to walk on water or fly unaided.

I'm no expert, but I don't think the limits our bodies place on us, or the limits that gravity places on us, I don't think they have anything to do with free will?

 

[barehl]

Others are pointing to your post so let's address that.

If all the actions people take are the result of an extremely complex equation based upon a series of variables (genetics, environment, past experiences, brain chemistry, etc).

Then free will would be the ability, somehow, for a person to take an action contrary to the result of that equation.

This seems to be a prime example of a silly, self-contradictory definition. You do understand that you've just given an argument of:

If A is true then free will is valid if A is false.

 

[Ray Brady]

This seems to be a prime example of a silly, self-contradictory definition. You do understand that you've just given an argument of:

If A is true then free will is valid if A is false.

Not at all. The Animus' argument makes perfect sense. If I were to paraphrase it, I would say that free will is the ability to act contrary to ones own desires, instincts and inclinations.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm no expert, but I don't think the limits our bodies place on us, or the limits that gravity places on us, I don't think they have anything to do with free will?

Why not? They limit our ability to do whatever we want. They're no less real than brain chemistry or social/moral pressures. I can't fly, I can't be attracted to men, and I (personally) can't murder someone. I don't see a difference.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There is absolutely zero way to keep this from just turning into the "The Soul" argument again. Nothing will happen but people arguing around each other, obviously using the term to mean very different things.

Scientifically speaking no, free will does not exist. Causality cannot be self generating, something has to cause (outside of some weird quirks I'll address in a moment) something so if a neuron fires in your brain to make a thought something caused it.

On a practical day to day level, of course we do in the sense that we have personal volition that we can be held accountable for and are in control of. Exactly as with solipsism the debate can be ended by throwing a rock at your head.

As with most philosophical nonsense this nothing but a manufactured "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg" question. Word the question in the most obtuse, self contradictory way and pat yourself on the back for coming up with convoluted answer.

 

[Aridas]

Not at all. The Animus' argument makes perfect sense. If I were to paraphrase it, I would say that free will is the ability to act contrary to ones own desires, instincts and inclinations.

Which, while it is one of the versions of free will that float around, is fundamentally strange in multiple ways, especially in summing up the former, where there's acknowledgement of the complexities actually involved that mean that one generally wouldn't actually be actually be acting contrary to one's own desires, instincts, and inclinations even if they chose something else, just favoring one favored course of action over other favored courses of actions. Fundamentally, the underlying concept of free will is about having a choice in the first place, in some relevant way, after all, not about acting contrary to one's desires or nature.

Why not? They limit our ability to do whatever we want. They're no less real than brain chemistry or social/moral pressures. I can't fly, I can't be attracted to men, and I (personally) can't murder someone. I don't see a difference.

That sounds like an obvious attempt at conflation, given how qualitatively different the listed limitations are. With that said, though, while I do accept that totally unrestricted choice is one version of free will that gets floated around, it's a kind that generally gets immediately dismissed from anything close to serious discussion outside of a small subset of idealists, as far as I've seen, given its overall lack of relevance to addressing any remotely meaningful or even interesting questions.

 

[barehl]

Not at all. The Animus' argument makes perfect sense. If I were to paraphrase it, I would say that free will is the ability to act contrary to ones own desires, instincts and inclinations.

How much hand-holding is required here?

If all the actions people take are the result of an extremely complex equation
If A

Then free will would be the ability, somehow,
Then free will is

for a person to take an action contrary to the result of that equation.
NOT A

 

[barehl]

There is absolutely zero way to keep this from just turning into the "The Soul" argument again.

I haven't mentioned a soul, have no belief whatsoever in a soul, and can prove that souls don't exist. So, I'm unlikely to entertain any argument that includes a soul.

Scientifically speaking no, free will does not exist. Causality cannot be self generating, something has to cause something

If this belief has been common among AI researchers, it could explain why there has been so little progress in 60 years.

Word the question in the most obtuse, self contradictory way and pat yourself on the back for coming up with convoluted answer.

I have no interest in obtuse, self-contradictory, or convoluted answers. At least for me, this relates to hard science.

 

[Aridas]

How much hand-holding is required here?

If all the actions people take are the result of an extremely complex equation
If A

Then free will would be the ability, somehow,
Then free will is

for a person to take an action contrary to the result of that equation.
NOT A

If one modified the last part to be something like "to consciously and intentionally alter the equation to produce a different result than would have been reached originally," that might well be one of the paths to changing that formulation into something workable.

 

[BobTheCoward]

How much hand-holding is required here?

If all the actions people take are the result of an extremely complex equation
If A

Then free will would be the ability, somehow,
Then free will is

for a person to take an action contrary to the result of that equation.
NOT A

But that is true. Free will would have to contradict everything we have learned about how decision making works for it to exist.

 

[Ray Brady]

How much hand-holding is required here?

If all the actions people take are the result of an extremely complex equation
If A

Then free will would be the ability, somehow,
Then free will is

for a person to take an action contrary to the result of that equation.
NOT A

Which is neither silly nor self-contradictory.

 

[barehl]

If one modified the last part to be something like "to consciously and intentionally alter the equation to produce a different result than would have been reached originally," that might well be one of the paths to changing that formulation into something workable.

You are seriously suggesting that you are going to use the control algorithm to alter the control algorithm?