Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: kmm@cs.purdue.edu (Kevin Megill) Subject: Re: Free Will disproved Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article solan@math.uio.no (Svein Olav Nyberg) writes: > > Let's look at the moment of choice. The first question is: Is the >outcome of the choice fully determined by the past? > Let's assume it is not. But, then it cannot be fully determined by >the past of the person in question himself; i.e. the choice is partially ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ >independent of the person making the choice - some random factor has ^^^ ^^^^^^ >entered... > So let's assume the outcome of the choice is fully determined (by >the past of the person making the choice)... In my opinion (and I think this may sound nuts to some people) I think that to say I have free will is to say that the choice is NOT determined by my past, but still determined by me. (The choice may of course be somewhat influenced by my past.) Thus there are not just two possibilities -- my past, or random elements -- there are three -- my past, random elements, or free will. To assume only the first two possibilities exist is to assume what you are trying to prove. In other words, free will in my opinion means I can make a choice which is NOT FULLY DEPENDENT on my past or my personality. My choice is free even from that. Making a choice that is not fully based on my past is on some sense like creating something out of nothing, but that has been done before too :-) I think the Creator of the universe creates and maintains our freedom to choose. (Finally I should note that while I personally believe that we have the free will to accept or reject salvation, I am not so sure about our ability to make all sorts of other choices independent of our past.) I have thought a lot about this, but I have never discussed it with anyone who knows any formal philosophy, so I may be talking nonsense :-) Comments? Kevin Megill kmm@cs.purdue.edu [The question is where that third element (you) comes from. The thing that is supposedly independent of your past and all other influences. It seems to me that you're talking about something that is somehow its own cause. I thought only God was that (and I'm not sure that even for him the concept makes much sense.) By the way, I'm not ready to reject all kinds of randomness, though I agree that if we're overly influenced by it, we are probably best thought of as insane. It may be some odd image comes to you out of the quantum noise, and that it sparks a thought that leads to something good. But if your action isn't basically dependent on your personality and goals (plus some input from the outside, of course), then to that extent it seems reasonable to characterize you as irrational. This sort of debate tends to assume (on both sides) that if something is determined by your past, it isn't free. I don't think I agree with that. Generally when people say you made a free choice they mean nobody was forcing you to do something. The choice reflects your own analysis of the situation and your own goals. The fact that your goals are the result of past experience doesn't make the decision less free. The fact that someone who knows you could predict what you would do doesn't make your decision unreal. In this analysis decisions are free to the extent that they reflect your character and goals. I don't want to suggest the people are simple mechanisms that act on goals in a mechanical way. They way we behave is quite a complex mix of experience, character, things that are currently happening around them, and randomness. (By randomness I'm including more than quantum noise. I include the fact that the sun just happens to come out at the moment, and its light reminds you of something you wouldn't have thought of otherwise, even though that change in the clouds is probably predictable in principle). In fact there's enough essential randomness in quantum mechanics that the concept of God setting the universe into motion at the Big Bang, and the rest being determined is not reasonable. But I think that's significant mostly on a fairly long time scale. (For example, it might have some implications on how God is responsible for human history.) I suspect that essentially all of our decisions could be predicted quite accurately by someone who knew us and what was happening to us well enough. So even if as a first approximation we assume that our actions are in principle predictable, I don't see how that affects free will. Freedom means I'm responsible for my action -- that what I do is determined by my character doesn't seem to make me less free. I have this feeling that as people become more dependable and more coherent, they probably (at least from God's perspective) also become more predictable. You can probably predict what Jesus would do when confronted with certain challenges better than you can predict what I would do. I may be hampered by my fears and all sorts of other things. Does this make me more free? I don't think so. --clh]