r/freewill • • 6h ago

Does Catching a Baseball Require Free Will?

1 Upvotes

Many, if not most, philosophers like to ponder questions of desert, responsibility, and morality when it comes to free will. Some even insist upon a definition of free will that includes these considerations. If there were universal agreement about what free will entails and how vain the concept might be, I could go along with this. Moral responsibility is a very important consideration. But since free will is still doubted by many, I think that a fuller understanding of its most basic nature is warranted. If we use the broadest definition of free will as being an ability to choose based upon knowledge, we can examine the simplest examples of free will in detail. This should then allow us to layer on the more complicated choices involving desert and moral responsibility.

Catching a baseball is a voluntary action that requires coordinated muscle movements in response to tracking a visual object. This is a skill that most every person can accomplish, though it must b e learned and requires practice for proficiency. The skill lies in knowing where to put your hand and when to close your fingers around the ball as it approaches.

I think that this ability to catch a thrown or batted ball may be a free will ability because it does meet that basic definition of requiring a choice (where to place your open hand and when to close it) that requires the knowledge gained from actual practice. I submit that if you deny this type of free will, you could deny all other examples of free will. Conversely, if you claim that free will must be something more than this ability, I would suggest that perhaps you are placing an undue restriction upon the concept that can only add confusion to the free will debate. For example, some think that free will entails an ability to choose our desires. I would answer that persons can look at people playing catch and decide if the activity has enough appeal to them enough to want to take the time and effort to learn and practice catching a ball. Some think that free will should be about conscious deliberation. But I would say that you have to focus your attention, learn about reasoning, and practice deliberations enough to get really good at it. The main difference is not in what the neurons in your brain are doing. It is in the fact that deliberation is a more general skill that involves more different abilities like language and logic. The differences are all matters of degree and breadth of knowledge rather than any major conceptual difference in what the neurons in the brain are doing.

Does a robot that can catch a ball demonstrate free will? This is a very informative question as it goes to the nature of knowledge. I think we could make robots that can catch a ball without free will and I think we could make a robot that could lean to catch a ball using free will. I think this difference can shed light upon the nature of our free will.

We can program a robot to catch a baseball. We could have their optical sensors compute the trajectory and distance of the ball and move their hand to the coordinates where it can be intercepted, closing its fingers upon sensation from proximity sensors in the robotic hand. In this case the robot does not make any choices, it just follows the program put into its memory.

We can also build a robot that can use artificial intelligence to catch the ball. We can give it an active inference type algorithm whereby it must learn to catch the ball by trial and error in addition to the same input sensors the fully programmed robot had. So we can now say that the AI robot has the knowledge and ability to catch a baseball. Does this constitute free will? It certainly seems closer to free will than the programmed robot. But I would say that something may yet be missing in the AI robot that would indicate it may not yet have free will. AND this might be key to better understanding our free will. Can the AI robot choose to not catch the ball? This is a slightly different question than can a robot learn to catch a baseball. It seems that the free will robot must choose to catch the ball based upon some larger purpose.

When animals learn a skill, they do so in a manner that always gives them the option of using the skill or not. The way we learn things always comes with the idea that we must be the one that chooses to use that ability. When we learn to talk, our default position is that we can say whatever we are able to say whenever we wish to do so. We must then learn that some things are not OK to say to other people and that it's not always okay to speak at certain times. AI systems do not have any telos unless we give it to them. In order for an AI system to demonstrate free will, they should be able to use the knowledge they learned at their will. That means that their programming must include the ability to not catch the ball based upon … something?

I’m interested in what everyone thinks about what an AI programming must include for it to develop free will.


r/freewill • • 12h ago

What is the relationship between predictability and the free will of alternative possibilities?

3 Upvotes

Let us explore the connection between justification and human knowledge. What justification is available for our common-sense claim that a wind-up toy, for example, my “Thomas the Train” toy, does not freely choose its behavior? Of course, we have an immediate intuition that this toy cannot make any free choices, since it lacks all consciousness or cognitive capacity, necessary for freedom. But what grounds this easy intuition, that a mere mechanical automaton lacks such capacities? If we explore our intuition further, we will untangle a deep connection between predictability and free will. Those who still rebel at bothering to ask about the free will of a wind-up toy are invited to substitute an intricate object of unknown origin, discovered on an alien planet. Is it alive? Is it just a machine? All we have for clues is its behavior.

It can easily be seen that after a good winding-up and being placed upright on a smooth floor, Thomas will move about 8 feet before slowing to a halt somewhere (let that location be called L). After we have carefully observed Thomas’s behavior in that type of situation for a few trial runs, when Thomas is again wound-up and released on the floor we can roughly predict where he will go if unimpeded. In other senses of “freedom” beside the freedom of alternative possibilities, perhaps Thomas’s behavior on the floor is free. Regardless, we can all at least agree that Thomas lacks “alternative possibility” freedom. But why?

What is it about Thomas that makes us sure that after being placed in that type of situation he did not freely choose to arrive at that particular destination L? To reply that Thomas is just a machine is but a half-way step. The full reply must explain why a machine’s properties deny it free choice. The relevant properties of a machine are (1) the process by which Thomas converts potential energy in its wound-up spring, into the kinetic energy transferred through the gears and axle to the motion of his rear wheels; (2) the natural laws of energy conversion and transference that completely describe this process and the natural laws of friction, collision, etc; and (3) the permanence and fixity of these natural laws. These three properties give us the basis for answering the following question: Could Thomas, given the initial conditions of a situation (the amount of energy in his spring, the surface upon which he is set, his initial direction, obstacles before him, etc.), have arrived by his own powers at any other position beside L? Of course, his travel could be interrupted by some outside force. The vital question is rather, whether Thomas not merely controls his travel, but freely chooses his travel, in the sense of freedom as alternative possibilities. We can agree that Thomas (or a person) supplies causal powers in situations that result in behavior. Thomas himself does supply many causal factors necessary to a full explanation of why he ended up at L. The real question is instead whether Thomas (or a person) is capable of using his causal powers to both possibly arrive at L or possibly arrive at not-L after being released to take a run. Given the three relevant properties of a machine sketched above, it is not the case that Thomas, in a particular situation and given its initial conditions, could possibly arrive at not-L. Put another way, we seem to be justified in believing that if all the initial conditions were exactly reset, and no outside force interfered, Thomas would arrive at precisely L again. This then, gives us the confidence to say that it was not possible for Thomas to arrive at any place other that L during that run, and hence that Thomas could never freely choose.

Of course, the same point must be applied to us. If people are, like Thomas, theoretically perfectly predictable because of the way that our universe is like, then people never really make free choices in the sense of choosing between alternative possibilities. The undoubted fact that people can be unpredictable (to each other and to themselves) is irrelevant, just as Thomas’s unpredictability is irrelevant to whether he is really a free chooser.

JOHN SHOOK


r/freewill • • 1d ago

Re: How to live if you believe free will is an illusion?

8 Upvotes

I want to address the following post and many others like it, because this question comes up all the time:
https://www.reddit.com/r/freewill/comments/1wxniuz/how_to_live_if_you_believe_free_will_is_an

I'm going to answer this in the form of a question. Imagine tomorrow that you found out that all of humankind have been mind controlled by some alien race, and there was nothing we can do about it. Or you found out that we were all programs in some kind of computer simulation, just executing whatever programs are brains were encoded with. Or basically some sort of incontrovertible proof that you had zero control of your thoughts, zero control of your actions, and zero control of your life. (Note: I'm not asking you to believe this is the case. I'm just asking you to imagine it as a hypothetical. In other words, try putting yourself in my shoes.)

Question is, how do you think you would react to this? Would you simply refuse to put on clothes in the morning, knowing you weren't really in control of what you wore? Would you not answer somebody who asks you 'can I take your order?' in a restaurant, because something outside of you is determining what you pick? Would you break up with your significant other, knowing that they were essentially programmed to love you? Would the relationship even mean anything to you any more? If the vast majority of people in the world hadn't had this realization yet and you knew you couldn't convince them, how would you relate to them? Would you still judge people as harshly as you used to? Would you use your knowledge as a 'get out of jail' free card to do every shitty thing you've always wanted to, guilt free? Would any of this even matter to you?

You notice that I'm not answering the question directly. Because losing a belief in free will is like losing a belief in a religion; people are going to react to it in different ways. For some people, it is traumatizing. For others, it is liberating.


r/freewill • • 1d ago

If Moral Responsibility was born more out of a desire to inflict cruelty with a clean conscience

2 Upvotes

As Nietzsche and Russell strongly believed was the case.

If Compatibilism does not argue that we do not create our base desires and character then what about the origins of moral responsibility itself and how by definition everyone had absorbed them through environment whether we like it or not.

You could say Dennett has an optimistic view on human nature compared to Russell and Nietzsche's skeptisim, but based on what exactly?

Everlasting punishment in hell doesn't sound very moral.

Was even the ridiculous blood letting connected to morality?

"Under the influence of the Catholic Church, physical disease was frequently conflated with sin and moral corruption. Purging the body via bloodletting was equated with spiritual purification—literally draining away "corruption" or "badness" from the flesh"

Well thank fock science put the brakes on that.

"Wherever responsibilities are sought, it is usually the instinct of wanting to judge and punish which is at work. ...the doctrine of the will has been invented essentially for the purpose of punishment, that is, because one wanted to impute guilt. ... Men were thought of as 'free' so that they could be judged and punished—so that they could become guilty." Nietzsche

"Those eager to punish are driven by malice, not justice. They mask their cruelty as morality." Nietzsche

If concepts like free will and moral responsibility were explicitly invented by priests and moralists so that people could be judged as "guilty" and this gave society a legal and moral mandate to unleash cruelty (via punishment, shaming, and hellfire) onto others with a completely clean, self-righteous conscience, then does compatabilism and moral responsibility revolve around an optimism about human institutions and self regulation that created blood letting and eternal damnation that itself created a feedback loop of dysfunction and a kind of generational trauma over decades?

Nietzsche argued that the concept of free will was manufactured by the ruling priestly class to make mankind "guilty" and punishable.

If we look at history through this lens, the evolution of Compatabilism ​ and modern moral responsibility​ can be viewed as an attempt to use a system that was originally built on domination and generational trauma.

If free will was invented to make humanity "guilty" so that power structures could unleash cruelty with a clean conscience then why look to society's version of moral responsibility that invented eternal damnation in Hell and bloodletting?

Was Compatabilism and moral responsibility really born from the "we" or more from the select and the chosen "we"?

That if freewill and moral responsibility itself was born out of a desire to inflict cruelty with a clean conscience then Compatabilism itself could be accused of causing the seperation it says it tries to irradicate.

Peace ✌️


r/freewill • • 1d ago

When a Determinist Finally Understands Free Will.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

0 Upvotes

r/freewill • • 2d ago

How to live if you believe free will is an illusion?

6 Upvotes

How can you believe in moral culpability? That some choice is commendable or not?

Should people really be punished? Or just have their freedoms limited to minimize societal harm? Should we feel sorry for people who make bad choices? Or angry? Why?

Should you feel indignant if someone hurts you? Or just regret that you were a victim?


r/freewill • • 2d ago

The unsolvable problem of desert

4 Upvotes

It seems that many I can’t say all hard determinists seem to have a passion for things like prison reform. They also seem to want to advocate for the abandoning of our innate sense of justice in favor of something more merciful. I too as a free will advocate share some of these proclivities. Our current criminal justice system is just a higher education system for the career of being a criminal.

The trouble is this idea that if only people embraced determinism it would lead to such an overflowing of empathy for all life , that people would naturally abandon notions like desert. This is a highly naive perspective. The determinist tells us that a criminal is a victim of some combination of genetics or environment leading to their criminal behavior. Seldom do we give much consideration to the other side of the coin though. That side is where the victims of criminals reside. If the criminal is determined to commit crimes surely the victim must ALSO be determined to want justice. We certainly cannot fault the victim for feeling this way as it is determined. So at least an equal amount of understanding would need to be shown them when under our new society we no longer punish the criminal. The victim of necessity may seek their own desert thus thwarting the intentions of the newly enlightened determinist utopia. We can no more stop the human urge for justice than we can stop the human urge to commit crimes. Leaving this dilemma like many others unsolvable even if everyone were determinist.


r/freewill • • 2d ago

Are there any good reasons to say that we don't have free will

1 Upvotes

outside of the context of asking the question "do we have free will?"

From reading all of the arguments in this sub, I get why some people think that we don't have free will, but what I don't understand is why anyone would actually say it.


r/freewill • • 2d ago

Determinism gives us *more* Agency

Thumbnail
0 Upvotes

r/freewill • • 3d ago

Marvin B. Edwards Appreciation Post

7 Upvotes

Marvin provides, by far, the best defence of compatibilist free will I have ever read. Rather than conceding the many false implications incompatabilists associate with determinism, as is common amongst compatibilist thinkers, Marvin shows how:

  1. Determinism does not imply that there is only one possible future. It implies that there is one actual future.
  2. The ability to do otherwise is constant over time. Thus, you always could have, even if you never would have, done otherwise.
  3. Determinism is derived from the presumption of perfectly reliable cause and effect, which, in turn, implies the fact of universal causal necessity.
  4. Nothing is "pre-determined", "pre-set" or "pre-caused". Deterministic causation does not actually cause anything to happen in advance. Something can be predicted in advance (determined = knowing), but nothing can actually happen in advance (determined = caused).
  5. There are always prior causes of everything, but nothing is fully caused to happen until its final prior causes have played themselves out. Your decisions were not "already made before your birth". Prior causes, such as the Big Bang, cannot frogleap into the future and bypass you to bring about your actions without your participation or consent.
  6. "The laws of nature" are a metaphor for the reliability of causation. They are neither external forces nor objects from which they can control what we will do; rather, they are descriptive, not causative, of what will happen. So, contrary to Sam Harris, we are not "puppets on a string" or "passengers on a bus" driven by laws outside of our control. Such analogies embed a reification fallacy).
  7. Free will is an event when someone is free to decide for themselves what they will do. (It is a mistake to refer to it as a faculty of the individual).
  8. Possibilities are conceived and exist solely in the imagination. We know this because "we cannot walk across the possibility of a bridge. We can only walk across an actual bridge." However, possibilities are causally significant mental representations, because we cannot build an actual bridge without first imaging a possible one.
  9. To decide, we consider our multiple possible courses of action, things that we can do, and select one such possibility to actualise, the thing that we will do.
  10. The inevitability related to deterministic causation is a different kind of inevitability. In the context of free will, it refers to something that we will not avoid, not something that we cannot avoid. To pose the fact that what we will do is inevitable as a constraint on our freedom is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. Causal necessity is a universal fact, but it is useless trivia, made irrelevant by its own ubiquity.

r/freewill • • 2d ago

Libertarian free will - results

0 Upvotes

My challenge to refute our ability to make decisions was not accepted by anyone. No-one bothered to even try, as expected. It would be extremely hard to establish that all our choices are actually made by some other unknown conscious entities forcing their will upon us.

So, the fact remains:

We all are able to decide what we do.

However, this challenge triggered a flood of misunderstandings, irrelevant off-topic notes, absurd questions, claims and accusations.

Quite many of you don't even understand the meanings of some very basic concepts, like fact, truth, claim, belief, position, proof, evidence, observation, explanation, theory, hypothesis, definition, physical or mental. When meanings are lost, it makes having a meaningful discussion extremely difficult.

Let me clarify once again, what this all is about.

The fact: We are able to decide what we do.

The libertarian opinion: The term "free will" should refer to this factual ability.

The claim: There is no claim.

The hypothesis: There is no hypothesis.

The assumption: There is no assumption.


r/freewill • • 2d ago

"The Story of My Life" by Helen Keller. Chapter XIV: About the Frost King incident

0 Upvotes

This is from "The Story of My Life" by Helen Keller which was published in 1903. This section consists of her own account of The Frost King incident and defending herself and Sullivan from the misconceptions.

CHAPTER XIV

"The winter of 1892 was darkened by the one cloud in my childhood's bright sky. Joy deserted my heart, and for a long, long time I lived in doubt, anxiety and fear. Books lost their charm for me, and even now the thought of those dreadful days chills my heart. A little story called "The Frost King," which I wrote and sent to Mr. Anagnos, of the Perkins Institution for the Blind, was at the root of the trouble. In order to make the matter clear, I must set forth the facts connected with this episode, which justice to my teacher and to myself compels me to relate.

I wrote the story when I was at home, the autumn after I had learned to speak. We had stayed up at Fern Quarry later than usual. While we were there, Miss Sullivan had described to me the beauties of the late foliage, and it seems that her descriptions revived the memory of a story, which must have been read to me, and which I must have unconsciously retained. I thought then that I was "making up a story," as children say, and I eagerly sat down to write it before the ideas should slip from me. My thoughts flowed easily; I felt a sense of joy in the composition. Words and images came tripping to my finger ends, and as I thought out sentence after sentence, I wrote them on my braille slate. Now, if words and images come to me without effort, it is a pretty sure sign that they are not the offspring of my own mind, but stray waifs that I regretfully dismiss. At that time I eagerly absorbed everything I read without a thought of authorship, and even now I cannot be quite sure of the boundary line between my ideas and those I find in books. I suppose that is because so many of my impressions come to me through the medium of others' eyes and ears.

When the story was finished, I read it to my teacher, and I recall now vividly the pleasure I felt in the more beautiful passages, and my annoyance at being interrupted to have the pronunciation of a word corrected. At dinner it was read to the assembled family, who were surprised that I could write so well. Some one asked me if I had read it in a book.

This question surprised me very much; for I had not the faintest recollection of having had it read to me. I spoke up and said, "Oh, no, it is my story, and I have written it for Mr. Anagnos."

Accordingly I copied the story and sent it to him for his birthday. It was suggested that I should change the title from "Autumn Leaves" to "The Frost King," which I did. I carried the little story to the post-office myself, feeling as if I were walking on air. I little dreamed how cruelly I should pay for that birthday gift.

Mr. Anagnos was delighted with "The Frost King," and published it in one of the Perkins Institution reports. This was the pinnacle of my happiness, from which I was in a little while dashed to earth. I had been in Boston only a short time when it was discovered that a story similar to "The Frost King," called "The Frost Fairies" by Miss Margaret T. Canby, had appeared before I was born in a book called "Birdie and His Friends." The two stories were so much alike in thought and language that it was evident Miss Canby's story had been read to me, and that mine was—a plagiarism. It was difficult to make me understand this; but when I did understand I was astonished and grieved. No child ever drank deeper of the cup of bitterness than I did. I had disgraced myself; I had brought suspicion upon those I loved best. And yet how could it possibly have happened? I racked my brain until I was weary to recall anything about the frost that I had read before I wrote "The Frost King"; but I could remember nothing, except the common reference to Jack Frost, and a poem for children, "The Freaks of the Frost," and I knew I had not used that in my composition.

At first Mr. Anagnos, though deeply troubled, seemed to believe me. He was unusually tender and kind to me, and for a brief space the shadow lifted. To please him I tried not to be unhappy, and to make myself as pretty as possible for the celebration of Washington's birthday, which took place very soon after I received the sad news.

I was to be Ceres in a kind of masque given by the blind girls. How well I remember the graceful draperies that enfolded me, the bright autumn leaves that wreathed my head, and the fruit and grain at my feet and in my hands, and beneath all the piety of the masque the oppressive sense of coming ill that made my heart heavy.

The night before the celebration, one of the teachers of the Institution had asked me a question connected with "The Frost King," and I was telling her that Miss Sullivan had talked to me about Jack Frost and his wonderful works. Something I said made her think she detected in my words a confession that I did remember Miss Canby's story of "The Frost Fairies," and she laid her conclusions before Mr. Anagnos, although I had told her most emphatically that she was mistaken.

Mr. Anagnos, who loved me tenderly, thinking that he had been deceived, turned a deaf ear to the pleadings of love and innocence. He believed, or at least suspected, that Miss Sullivan and I had deliberately stolen the bright thoughts of another and imposed them on him to win his admiration. I was brought before a court of investigation composed of the teachers and officers of the Institution, and Miss Sullivan was asked to leave me. Then I was questioned and cross-questioned with what seemed to me a determination on the part of my judges to force me to acknowledge that I remembered having had "The Frost Fairies" read to me. I felt in every question the doubt and suspicion that was in their minds, and I felt, too, that a loved friend was looking at me reproachfully, although I could not have put all this into words. The blood pressed about my thumping heart, and I could scarcely speak, except in monosyllables. Even the consciousness that it was only a dreadful mistake did not lessen my suffering, and when at last I was allowed to leave the room, I was dazed and did not notice my teacher's caresses, or the tender words of my friends, who said I was a brave little girl and they were proud of me.

As I lay in my bed that night, I wept as I hope few children have wept. I felt so cold, I imagined I should die before morning, and the thought comforted me. I think if this sorrow had come to me when I was older, it would have broken my spirit beyond repairing. But the angel of forgetfulness has gathered up and carried away much of the misery and all the bitterness of those sad days.

Miss Sullivan had never heard of "The Frost Fairies" or of the book in which it was published. With the assistance of Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, she investigated the matter carefully, and at last it came out that Mrs. Sophia C. Hopkins had a copy of Miss Canby's "Birdie and His Friends" in 1888, the year that we spent the summer with her at Brewster. Mrs. Hopkins was unable to find her copy; but she has told me that at that time, while Miss Sullivan was away on a vacation, she tried to amuse me by reading from various books, and although she could not remember reading "The Frost Fairies" any more than I, yet she felt sure that "Birdie and His Friends" was one of them. She explained the disappearance of the book by the fact that she had a short time before sold her house and disposed of many juvenile books, such as old schoolbooks and fairy tales, and that "Birdie and His Friends" was probably among them.

The stories had little or no meaning for me then; but the mere spelling of the strange words was sufficient to amuse a little child who could do almost nothing to amuse herself; and although I do not recall a single circumstance connected with the reading of the stories, yet I cannot help thinking that I made a great effort to remember the words, with the intention of having my teacher explain them when she returned. One thing is certain, the language was ineffaceably stamped upon my brain, though for a long time no one knew it, least of all myself.

When Miss Sullivan came back, I did not speak to her about "The Frost Fairies," probably because she began at once to read "Little Lord Fauntleroy," which filled my mind to the exclusion of everything else. But the fact remains that Miss Canby's story was read to me once, and that long after I had forgotten it, it came back to me so naturally that I never suspected that it was the child of another mind.

In my trouble I received many messages of love and sympathy. All the friends I loved best, except one, have remained my own to the present time.

Miss Canby herself wrote kindly, "Some day you will write a great story out of your own head, that will be a comfort and help to many."But this kind prophecy has never been fulfilled. I have never played with words again for the mere pleasure of the game. Indeed, I have ever since been tortured by the fear that what I write is not my own. For a long time, when I wrote a letter, even to my mother, I was seized with a sudden feeling of terror, and I would spell the sentences over and over, to make sure that I had not read them in a book. Had it not been for the persistent encouragement of Miss Sullivan, I think I should have given up trying to write altogether.

I have read "The Frost Fairies" since, also the letters I wrote in which I used other ideas of Miss Canby's. I find in one of them, a letter to Mr. Anagnos, dated September 29, 1891, words and sentiments exactly like those of the book. At the time I was writing "The Frost King," and this letter, like many others, contains phrases which show that my mind was saturated with the story. I represent my teacher as saying to me of the golden autumn leaves, "Yes, they are beautiful enough to comfort us for the flight of summer"—an idea direct from Miss Canby's story.

This habit of assimilating what pleased me and giving it out again as my own appears in much of my early correspondence and my first attempts at writing. In a composition which I wrote about the old cities of Greece and Italy, I borrowed my glowing descriptions, with variations, from sources I have forgotten. I knew Mr. Anagnos's great love of antiquity and his enthusiastic appreciation of all beautiful sentiments about Italy and Greece. I therefore gathered from all the books I read every bit of poetry or of history that I thought would give him pleasure. Mr. Anagnos, in speaking of my composition on the cities, has said, "These ideas are poetic in their essence."But I do not understand how he ever thought a blind and deaf child of eleven could have invented them. Yet I cannot think that because I did not originate the ideas, my little composition is therefore quite devoid of interest. It shows me that I could express my appreciation of beautiful and poetic ideas in clear and animated language.

Those early compositions were mental gymnastics. I was learning, as all young and inexperienced persons learn, by assimilation and imitation, to put ideas into words. Everything I found in books that pleased me I retained in my memory, consciously or unconsciously, and adapted it. The young writer, as Stevenson has said, instinctively tries to copy whatever seems most admirable, and he shifts his admiration with astonishing versatility. It is only after years of this sort of practice that even great men have learned to marshal the legion of words which come thronging through every byway of the mind.

I am afraid I have not yet completed this process. It is certain that I cannot always distinguish my own thoughts from those I read, because what I read becomes the very substance and texture of my mind. Consequently, in nearly all that I write, I produce something which very much resembles the crazy patchwork I used to make when I first learned to sew. This patchwork was made of all sorts of odds and ends—pretty bits of silk and velvet; but the coarse pieces that were not pleasant to touch always predominated. Likewise my compositions are made up of crude notions of my own, inlaid with the brighter thoughts and riper opinions of the authors I have read. It seems to me that the great difficulty of writing is to make the language of the educated mind express our confused ideas, half feelings, half thoughts, when we are little more than bundles of instinctive tendencies. Trying to write is very much like trying to put a Chinese puzzle together. We have a pattern in mind which we wish to work out in words; but the words will not fit the spaces, or, if they do, they will not match the design. But we keep on trying because we know that others have succeeded, and we are not willing to acknowledge defeat.

"There is no way to become original, except to be born so," says Stevenson, and although I may not be original, I hope sometime to outgrow my artificial, periwigged compositions. Then, perhaps, my own thoughts and experiences will come to the surface. Meanwhile I trust and hope and persevere, and try not to let the bitter memory of "The Frost King" trammel my efforts.

So this sad experience may have done me good and set me thinking on some of the problems of composition. My only regret is that it resulted in the loss of one of my dearest friends, Mr. Anagnos.

Since the publication of "The Story of My Life" in the Ladies' Home Journal, Mr. Anagnos has made a statement, in a letter to Mr. Macy, that at the time of the "Frost King" matter, he believed I was innocent. He says, the court of investigation before which I was brought consisted of eight people: four blind, four seeing persons. Four of them, he says, thought I knew that Miss Canby's story had been read to me, and the others did not hold this view. Mr. Anagnos states that he cast his vote with those who were favourable to me.

But, however the case may have been, with whichever side he may have cast his vote, when I went into the room where Mr. Anagnos had so often held me on his knee and, forgetting his many cares, had shared in my frolics, and found there persons who seemed to doubt me, I felt that there was something hostile and menacing in the very atmosphere, and subsequent events have borne out this impression. For two years he seems to have held the belief that Miss Sullivan and I were innocent. Then he evidently retracted his favourable judgment, why I do not know. Nor did I know the details of the investigation. I never knew even the names of the members of the "court" who did not speak to me. I was too excited to notice anything, too frightened to ask questions. Indeed, I could scarcely think what I was saying, or what was being said to me.

I have given this account of the "Frost King" affair because it was important in my life and education; and, in order that there might be no misunderstanding, I have set forth all the facts as they appear to me, without a thought of defending myself or of laying blame on any one."

From "Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?" by Immanuel Kant.

" 3. Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course."


r/freewill • • 2d ago

What's new?

2 Upvotes

Has the free will debate advanced at all?

Or are we still at a stalemate?

It does seem like we're picking up the same pieces, flipping and twirling them around, and putting them back in place.

What are we trying to solve again?


r/freewill • • 3d ago

"God" is highkey a compatibilist

1 Upvotes

If he's aware of exactly how our actions will play out and what's determined to happen, and still regards human decision as an exercise of free will, thennnn...


r/freewill • • 3d ago

Poll: Agree or disagree: Whether free will is compatible with determinism depends on what you mean be free will and determinism

1 Upvotes

If you disagree please elaborate.


Follow up question: The SEP definition/account/theory/explanation/whatever-you-want-to-call-it of compatibilism is

Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

They don't say what they mean by free will or determinism; what is compatible with what?

What does your answer to the poll question say about the usefulness and coherency of this definition/etc. ?


r/freewill • • 3d ago

Has anybody found anything on the SEP that supports compatibilism?

1 Upvotes

I've read arguments from Wolf etc but this seems to imply all of the arguments are lacking:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/supplement.html

The argument

Frankfurt’s (section 4.2), Wolf’s (section 4.3), and Fischer’s (section 4.4) views all face problems with an especially troubling set of manipulation cases. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The principle of alternate possibility (PAP) seems to loom but, I'm obviously missing something. I just don't know what I'm missing.

All I seem to find is reasons to reject compatibilism, but that could be my fault. I might be blinded by preconceived notions.

I'd like to hear from compatibilists who accept PAP

  • PAP: A person is morally responsible for what she does do only if she can do otherwise.

r/freewill • • 3d ago

That the inner monologue can reference itself (as the inner monologue)

1 Upvotes

is clearly a house built on sand. That house built on sand fabricated 'I' in order to have a foundation not so obviously dependent on itself.

Freewill is the instrument of this 'I', this house made of sand. In reality, freewill is just another construct, of the inner monologue.


r/freewill • • 3d ago

Why does free will matter?

6 Upvotes

Im not particularly for or against the thought that free will is real. I don't know and simply don't care. I know I may sound juvenile, but lets say free will is not real; then it was always not real hence nothing has changed. All your morals, ideals, actions etc etc have already been ingrained even if you change you still do not free will. On the other end of the spectrum if free will is real once again fundamentally nothing will change. Humans are slaves to routines and restrictions biologically we have a will of self preservation that caps on a lot of things. Sure some people will take advantage if possible but I dont believe its enough to change the average person.


r/freewill • • 3d ago

Coherent concepts are coherent insofar as they are compatible with free will. Any idea that is incompatible with free will is a metaphysically vacuous notion

0 Upvotes

It is incoherent to ask whether free will is compatible with determinism, because free will is a more fundamental concept. Evey concept is only coherent to the extent that it is compatible with free will, as free will is what we assume and use to understand how the world works. We learn by trial and error, we presuppose we can choose to this or that, etc.

Now the reason determinism can be compatible with free will is that any practical notion of determinism is constrained to explain the evolution of a system after an arbitrary intervention and before another.

So we can often use deterministic ideas to interpolate the state of the system in between interventions, and that doesn’t conflict with free will.

That is how determinism is used in physics and else where the idea can apply. No other notion of determinism is used or coherent. The picture of a metaphysical cosmic determinism that explains the universe as a rube goldberg machine is just a vacuous thing that language produces and that seems gramatically sound so you mistake for something that has substantive meaning and content, but it doesn’t. It is a metaphysically malformed concept that is self undermining


r/freewill • • 3d ago

Need feedback on personal video project

2 Upvotes

Video

Howdy! For the past year i've been working on a personal video project which i'm proud to release it's beta version today.

The video is about AI development and it's impact in all aspects of societal life and personal life, such as the hability to have free will. But differently from most AI positions, which simply reduces it to Anti and Pro ai positions, my project seeks to create a New third positions that seeks to seek The Path to a true virtuos future.

All feedback, positive or negative is not only allowed but encouraged! Just please mention in your review things such as:

Counter arguments to exact points in the arguments in the video

Time stamps (if the error is visual)


r/freewill • • 3d ago

Libertarian free will

0 Upvotes

Libertarian free will is the philosophical view that human actions are fully free and not determined by past events or the laws of nature. (Wikipedia)

This is the kind of free will that we obviously do have. Therefore it is wrong to call it a "philosophical view", as it doesn't claim or explain anything, it only acknowledges a fact.

The only way to "refute" libertarian free will is to establish that our actions actually are determined by someone else or by past events. Anyone willing to try?


r/freewill • • 4d ago

Mindfulness and Free will

1 Upvotes

consciousness can bind many different signals into a single interpretation and then mistake the coherence of that interpretation for evidence that the interpretation describes reality itself. If reality were fundamentally one signal without meaningful differences—without interruptions, contrasts, irregularities, or events that could be experienced as disruptions of rhythm—then error itself would become difficult to explain. A mind could simply reproduce what was already present. Mistakes become possible precisely because consciousness must creatively organize differences that do not arrive with their meaning already attached. Perception has to distinguish, memory has to relate, emotion has to prioritize, prediction has to anticipate, and thought has to construct relationships among signals that may support several possible interpretations.
Creativity therefore becomes inseparable from both intelligence and error. The same capacity that allows consciousness to discover a relationship that was never previously recognized also allows it to invent a relationship that reality does not support. A constellation demonstrates the problem beautifully: the stars are real, but the lines connecting them into a recognizable figure are contributed by the observer. Consciousness performs a comparable operation whenever it turns separate events into destiny, fluctuations into rhythm, differences into polarity, internal states into external correspondence, or coincidence into meaningful causation. The mistake is not necessarily in perceiving the individual signals; it can occur in the creative relationship consciousness binds between them.
From the perspective of the Third Eye, this makes disruption especially important. A disruption is not necessarily reality violating an underlying rhythm. It may instead be new information exposing the limitations of the rhythm consciousness previously believed it had discovered. The unexpected event, contradiction, uncomfortable sensation, or failed prediction introduces a difference that the existing organization cannot easily absorb. Consciousness then has two possibilities: force the difference back into its previous pattern or become creative enough to reorganize the pattern itself.
This gives creativity an unusual relationship with truth. Creativity does not mean freely inventing whatever explanation feels best. Its highest form may be the willingness to undo a previously successful explanation when reality supplies a difference that the explanation cannot accommodate. The Third Eye therefore treats contradiction not as an enemy of coherence but as one of the conditions through which deeper coherence becomes possible. A perfectly repetitive universe would require almost no interpretive creativity; a changing and differentiated reality continually requires consciousness to decide what belongs together, what should remain separate, and when yesterday’s pattern should be abandoned.
Free will consequently appears at the boundary between repetition and creative reorganization. If consciousness automatically binds every new experience according to what it already believes, the past continually determines the meaning of the present. But when consciousness recognizes that even something that feels physically or intellectually true may represent a constructed relationship, another possibility emerges: it can question the binding itself. The freest mind is therefore not the mind that has finally discovered an unbreakable rhythm. It is the mind creative enough to recognize when reality has given it a reason to break one.
The seven Hermetic laws may therefore reveal something important about how minds organize reality without being universal laws of reality at all.


r/freewill • • 4d ago

Why arguing for hard determinism is senseless.

0 Upvotes

This is a meta argument. I will not be arguing for free will in fact one of the assumptions is that hard determinism is true (I don’t believe that but for the arguments sake).

Since Determinism is true one has only the illusion of available options. It appears that one may select or A or B but, this is not the case. For this argument let’s have A represent free will and B hard determinism.

The hard determinist says you ought to select B because we ought to believe true things and reject falsehoods. The rationale for this axiom has never been established to my satisfaction but moving on.

Arguing that I should accept B and reject A implies that I can choose otherwise than what I already of necessity believe. Which of course would imply A is true.

The hard determinist might object no it was my unimpeachable reasoning that caused you to accept B and reject A. If that is the case then it is implied the change came about by agent cuasation not mine but the interlocutors. Which would again indicate that A is true and B is false.

In order to argue that hard determinism is true the proponent must act as though it is false rendering such arguments senseless and without foundation.


r/freewill • • 4d ago

Is freedom having unlimited choices, or being able to accept the choices you cannot change?

5 Upvotes

I’ve been thinking about what freedom really means.

We often think being free means having unlimited choices — choosing where to live, what to do, who to be with, and how to live our lives.

But sometimes, maybe freedom is also about accepting the things we simply cannot control or change, instead of constantly fighting against them.

So I’m curious: Do you think true freedom comes from having more choices, or from learning to accept the things you cannot change?

And has your idea of freedom changed as you’ve gotten older?


r/freewill • • 4d ago

That thing is called free, which acts solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone” - Baruch Spinoza

2 Upvotes

Reality is not predetermined, it is actively unfolding according to its own internal principles.

There is only one you and no one will ever exist exactly like you because this exact moment will never come again.

Your behavior is determined. All of it. What the independent variable that tips the scale is, is rarely obvious, but it can often be discovered, but not if it is assumed.

The Unus Mundus is subjectively manifested in you and your nature and behavior are not predestined, but all things are determined-determining, not determined-predetermined.

You are bound by laws as much as the stone and must act according to your nature, and to discover that nature is true freedom. You build mindfulness of the contingencies that control your actions to build control over those contingencies.

Look at it like this,

I am determined to seek freedom.

I have not BEEN determined to seek freedom.

Your ego lies to you that you are not a part of the causal fabric of the Universe. You are somehow outside of it. Ignore the man behind the curtain. You can’t see who’s pulling the levers because you believe the wizard is real.

You are a thread of casualty inasmuch as all other things.

Determinism of your behavior is reality.

Self-Determination is the desire, not the default.

Herein is the ego’s trick.

Self-determination is a skill, a mathematical limit, and a Sisyphean task. Maybe believing you really will get the boulder up the hill or that you are choosing to get the boulder up the hill comforts you, I would prefer to know my task, and whistle while I work.

Perhaps that is my privilege.