You are currently browsing the daily archive for 2012-03-07.

(Note: The following is a quick and dirty polishing of an outdated post that I wrote years ago.)

What free will isn’t

A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants.

— Arthur Schopenhauer

Free will does not and cannot be defined as the ability to make decisions without cause, random or unpredictable decisions. All those qualities, although partly present in complex systems, would contradict the notion of willful intent. What we want, and therefore do, must be based on reasonable ground. Random convulsions do not satisfy our notion of volition. It is defined as purposive striving and thus has to have a reason, it has to be a result of causal relationships.

What really matters to you is not that nobody is able to predict what you are going to do, but that you are capable to do so. What matters is that nothing prevents the realization of your goals. What matters is that you are free to do what you want.

What you want to do in the first place is not a matter of choice. You don’t even care about that. You solely care about being able to satisfy your needs and preferences. And I think that is the only reasonable, necessary and desired definition of free will that exists. To be free to realize what you want.

And that is also where predictability becomes an important aspect. If you are able to predict that you are unable to realize a certain goal, then you feel constrained. But most of the time we do not know if we will be able to realize our goals. We are unable to predict our success. That’s why we have to try. Uncertainty allows us to feel capable and therefore free.

Ask yourself, what is it that you want to be “free from”? You just want to be “free to”. To be free to do what you want. You do not want to be free from the constraints of mathematics, physics and rationality. You want to be constrained by reason, sanity and rules. You don’t want to be free in any sense that contradicts determinism. What you want is possibility, potentiality, enough room, enough resources to possibly realize your goals.

A futile definition

There’s no scientific reason to believe that we have free will. There’s no buffer zone that we’ve found in any of the physical laws of how the universe works to make room for free will. There’s non-determinism; but there’s not choice. Choice is the introduction of something, dare I say it, supernatural: some influence that isn’t part of the physical interaction, which allows some clusters of matter and energy to decide how they’ll collapse a probabilistic waveform into a particular reality.

Mark Chu-Carroll

Looking for free will as seen from a strong philosophical viewpoint is a futile effort. It’s asking for rainbows end. Reality, reason and logic forbid the notion of libertarian free will. Because libertarianism implies freedom of choice, which in turn implies absolute control, which is impossible.

Here is the problem. Internal causes are ultimately indistinguishable from causal relationships between a defined agent and the environment it resides in. But sufficient control over internal causes is prohibited.

To have a choice, an agent would have to understand its own workings and motives completely. Yet no system can understand itself for that the very understanding would evade itself forever, like a bin trying to contain itself.

A redefinition

Determinism is true but thermostats can still control the temperature. And nobody denies that thermostats control the temperature.

— Steven Landsburg paraphrasing Robert Nozick in The Big Questions

I would like to define the concept of free will as an agent’s ability to transform the world. Free will is the influence an agent does exert on the world versus the influence that the world has on the agent. More precisely, an agent can make free decisions if its internal stability can withstand external influences to a greater extent than the external influences can withstand its influence.

The degree to which an agent qualifies as free is dependent on the extent to which it satisfies the following criteria:

  • Its goals and internal decision procedures are stable under environmental influences.
  • It does exert goal-oriented, specific and orderly influence on the environment.
  • The complexity of transformation by which it shapes the outside environment (in which it is embedded), does outplay the environmental influence on itself.

Free will is a middleman.
Consciousness between cause and effect.
The intelligent refinement of causation into an effective agent.
The sun at your back – your shadow in front.
You are the shadow player.
Nevertheless, to claim sovereignty is trying to get ahead of your own shadow.
You imprint reality with a pattern of volition. But not without its implicit consent.

Is it real?

How does all this relate to our actual experience of free will and our use of the concept?

You have free will if you experience, or possess, a greater extent of freedom proportional to the amount of influence and effectiveness of control you exert over the environment versus the environment over you.

Here is an example. Children and some mentally handicapped people are not responsible in the same way that healthy adults are responsible for their actions. They cannot give consent or enter into legally binding contracts. One of the reasons for this is that they lack control, are easily influenced by others. Healthy humans exert a higher control than children and handicapped people.

Is it useful?

How much sense does all this make? I don’t know. I do not have the expertise to base my ideas on firm ground or even judge the credibility of my thoughts. Nonetheless, so far the above is as close as I can get towards a satisfying framework for the notion of free will.

I must also admit that my definition of free will does only work once you arbitrarily define a system to be an entity within an environment, contrary to being the environment.

The universe really just exists. And it appears to us that it is unfolding because we are part of it. We appear to each other to be free and intelligent because we believe that we are not part of it.

Nevertheless, I think it might after all be a useful definition when it comes to science, psychology and law. It might also very well address our understanding of being free agents.

Don’t get me wrong though, I believe that, from a purely practical point of view, we can do without the notion of free will just fine. People still have to go to jail in order to protect society from them, to educate them and because a general policy of deterrence is useful. Responsibility is not necessary.


Followup to: Acknowledge and allow for your needs

In his post ‘The End of Rationality‘ muflax wrote:

I’m basically done with rationality.

Ok, seriously now. I’ve always enjoyed XiXiDu‘s criticisms on LW, but for over a year now, whenever I read his stuff I wonder why he keeps on making it. I mean, he has been saying (more-or-less correctly so, I think) that SIAI and the LW sequences score high on any crackpot test, that virtually no expert in the field takes any of it seriously, that rationality (in the LW sense) has not shown any tangible results, that there are problems so huge you can fly a whole deconstructor fleet through, that the Outside View utterly disagrees with both the premises and conclusions of most LW thought, that actually taking it seriously should drive people insane […]

The keyword here is approximation. Just because general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing singularities it doesn’t mean that we’re “done with” those theories.

If some type of otherwise rational behavior leads to absurd, undesirable or unbearable consequences, then, in the absence of a better heuristic, you approximate the behavior as far as possible.

All you have to realize is that a reflective equilibrium is possible. A state where you balance all kinds of evidence with your preferences, elementary needs, computational and general resource limitations.

There are basically four weighted levels:

  • Level 1: Contemplation/Rationality (conscious, reflective high-level cognition (trying to do what is objectively right).
  • Level 2: Instinct, intuition and gut feeling (tapping your unconscious evolutionary resources).
  • Level 3: Satisfaction of elementary needs (doing what you have to do because you need to do it (this includes having fun); paying attention to your limitations;).
  • Level 4: Doing what you want based on naive introspection.

Level 1 should as far as I know have the most weight. But the weighting can change based on the circumstances. For example, if Level 2 is sufficiently strong it can cause you to discount some Level 1 considerations.