Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!umd5!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsm!channic
From: channic@uiucdcsm.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: More Free Will
Message-ID: <3200018@uiucdcsm>
Date: 13 May 88 19:42:00 GMT
References: <3200017@uiucdcsm>
Lines: 154
Nf-ID: #R:uiucdcsm:3200017:uiucdcsm:3200018:000:8969
Nf-From: uiucdcsm.cs.uiuc.edu!channic    May 13 14:42:00 1988


"HUNTER" (barr@pineapple.bbn.com) writes:
] In article <3200017@uiucdcsm> channic@uiucdcsm.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
] >"How do I know?" is as old a question as western philosophy if not all
] >philosophy.  The reason the question is that old is because subjective
] >personal experience is undeniable.  I know I have free will because that
] >is my experience. 

] You have seen optical illusions where a straight line is made to
] appear curved.  No-one doubts that your subjective experience tells
] you that the line is curved...
] The same
] is true of many other optical illusions, auditory illusions, and,
] naturally, the illusion that we call free will.  No-one says we do not
] experience it, only that we *mis-understand* what we experience.

Are you saying I can't believe anything I perceive?  Even that I can't
believe most of what I perceive -- that we *mis-understand* most of
what we experience?  Certainly I modify my knowledge based on additional
experience (placing a ruler on the line), but I acquire additional
information because I choose to, and I choose to because I have free
will.  Don't you?

The point is that in order to know (or believe or whatever) that the
line is straight you must accept some personal experience (that indeed
the ruler exactly adheres to the line) as valid.  We have reason to
believe the line is straight, so we discard the opinion that the line
is curved.  If I had experience to suggest that I did not have free
will, I would accept that my choices are determined by external forces.
But no posting thus far has provided evidence contrary to my free will
experience, so I must continue to maintain that my free will is not
an illusion in the least, but real.

] As a child, I thought that I chose what I wanted to eat, and I felt I
] had completely free will in this matter.  Now I know a little
] about the human digestive track, body-chemistry, and psychology; I can
] see that these played a big part in my "choices".  Such a big part
] that I now think they completely determined my choices.  So it seems
] useless to talk about free will in this case.  Only external factors
] will change the child's choices, such as reward/punishment for choosing
] one food over another.

Did you never get anything you wanted as a child?  I had choices as a
child and still do.  Of course biologic factors played a part, but
is the part sufficient to justify the generalization that ALL free
will is the result of external factors?  Why does it "seem
useless to talk about free will in this case?"  That is a subjective
choice on your part.  To make that choice you are exercising free will.
It is your choice to post your argument.  Free will, again.  Please
explain to me how you can make all these choices and not have free will.

] Choices we make as adults seem much the same, probably depending on
] factors we do not yet comprehend, just as we did not comprehend the
] factors which led us to choose M&Ms as children.  As I said, no-one
] has yet provided a reliable straight-edge for us to use on the free
] will experience (a definition of free will would help.)  But each
] experience with a choice which we *do* understand (like M&Ms over
] spinach) provides one little peice of that straight edge.  All the
] little peices in my experience look like they will fit a straight-edge
] called " determinism."  When we learn more about the factors which
] influence our choices, we will develop more or less confidence in this
] hypothetical straight-edge.  But until we understand most of these
] factors, we cannot claim to have this ill-defined "free will",
] whatever our subjective experience.

"When we learn more" then I will accept this "deterministic straight-edge".
Until that time, we MUST claim to have this ill-defined free will
because it is our primal motivation for ""learning more about the factors
which influence our choices."  We cannot learn more without choosing to
learn and this constitutes free will.  I cannot comprehend why you are
so eager to deny your free will on so little evidence!  My free will
is my most powerful tool in influencing my external reality.  Isn't yours?
I do not deny that external reality has an influence in return, but
imagine how overwhelming this external influence would be without
free will.  In fact, it is largely the "illusory" free will of others
which cause external influences to impinge on you.  You are bombarded
every day by people choosing to sell this, to argue that, to drive cars
there, to assemble homes and offices here.  Look around.  The structuring
of virtually the entire environment is a result of people who have chosen
to do something by exercising their free will.  Ill-defined as it is,
it is the prime force of change on the planet.  I can neither ignore it,
nor deny my fair share of it.

] >From where does this tendency to IGNORE subjective experience when
] >discussing SUBJECTIVE PHENOMENA originate?  My own
] >(and your own) experience of free will tells me (and you) a great deal
] >about its nature.  In fact, this experience is the most reliable source
] >of information regarding free will.

] I answer that this discussion itself is proof that we do not ignore
] subjective experience.  It does indeed tell us a great deal, and
] provides essential insight, but it is by no stretch of the imagination
] our most reliable source of information.  Try to adapt your reasoning
] to the straight line illusion.  Following your reasoning, I should not
] bother to rummage around in my desk for a straight-edge; nor should I
] doubt in any way my subjective experience that it is curved.  Why, you
] don't want me to think about things at all!  You just want me to sit
] there and "experience" that the line is curved, as if that experience
] matched reality.  What if my ability to better understand reality 
] makes me able to help people?  What if my ability to distinguish germ
] theory from superstition enables me to wipe out smallpox?  What if my
] ability to distinguish straight lines from curved ones enables me to
] build safer cars?  Then maybe my ability to distinguish demermined
] behaviour from this nebulous "free will" will enable me to wipe out a
] mental disease.  Whatever turns out to be the root our "free will"
] experience, we will not learn to understand it merely by sitting here
] and experiencing it subjectively.

Who said anything about sitting?  "Sitting there and experiencing" is
what I imagine someone without free will doing.  A rock has no free
will and just sits there.  If you had no free will you would just sit there,
too.  When I argue that free will exists, I am arguing precisely that you
have the ability to think, help people, build safer cars, wipe out
smallpox, and cure mental illnesses.  In fact, doing all these provides
the clearest subjective experience of free will.  The experience is
in the EXERCISE of free will, not sitting and thinking about it.

In terms of the straight-line illusion, you are asking me to accept
that the line is straight when only a part of the line matches the
true straight edge.  Furthermore, your argument is along the lines
of "If you look at a small enough section of the line, it sort of looks
straight."  I have no problem with the looking, but I urge you not
to presuppose that the non-linearity does not exist, especially when
it (free will) is motivating your search in the first place.  You just may
find that free will stands up under your most intense scrutiny.

Free will is nebulous - agreed.  Given this, how will we know that
we have created free will deterministically if we're not sure what
free will is?  We have no choice but to use our subjective experience
of EXERCISING free will as a model to which deterministic models
can be compared.  (Is that such a great "stretch of the imagination?")
My main argument through all these postings is
simply: Minsky's proposed model of free will as determinism with
some added randomness fails to account for responsiblity inherent in
free will, and thus fails as a plausible model for free will.
I won't argue that no deterministic algorithm and/or theory will
ever account for free will, but since this algorithm or theory would
have to account for every external influence on our persons,
I can't expect that anyone is anywhere near a plausible formulation
of deterministic free will.

I can't help but wonder.  What if, instead of this discussion and
instead of striving to prove the non-existence of free will in
the hope that along the way some insight into mental illness will
pop out at us, we chose rather to simply try to make life a bit better
by respecting those around us, smiling at them and telling
them we enjoy sharing our time with them, letting go of an old
grudge, or reminding someone of how much we care?  Which use of time
would be the most beneficial for the world?


Tom Channic
University of Illinois
channic@uiucdcs.cs.uiuc.edu
{decvax|ihnp4}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!channic