Russell Standish wrote:

>As I am bound to paraphrase, Free Will is the ability to do somehthing
>completely stupid!

Would you accept:

Freedom is the right to deny 2 + 2 = 5.
     (cf. George Orwell torture scene in 1984)
Free Will is the right to say 2 + 2 = 5 
     (cf. Russell Standish) ?


Interpreting freely "to deny 2 + 2 = 5" by -[]f (   f = FALSE or "0 = 1")
and "to say 2 + 2 = 5" by []f, you get through Orwell + Standish, 
this "interpretation" of Godel: 

          Freedom makes Free Will consistent.   (-[]f -> <>[]f) 

(Or the inconsistency of free will entails no freedom).

I am guessing you give a good definition of free-will, at least for
the "non stupid" (sound) machines.
For the "stupid" one (those inconsistent really believing that 2 + 2 = 5 
or
some equivalent proposition) it is not clear if their stupid acts will 
bear 
any witness to free-will.

Perhaps free will is the ability to do something we *bet* as being
completely stupid, and freedom is the ability of *not*
doing that completely stupid thing?

when George Levy said

>> Now let's look at observing free will in the self. Do we perceive
>> ourselves to be indeterminate in our behavior? Absolutely sometimes.
>> When the decision is clear then free will is really not an issue. Free
>> will becomes important when the decision factors are close to being
>> evenly split. In those cases, before a decision is made, there is no way
>> to know what this decision will be unless one makes the decision. If
>> someone asked you why did you choose this, you wouldn't be able to say.
>> This is free will.

I tend to disagree. When the decision factors are close to being
evenly split, then I cannot choose and let the first circumstance
choose for me. No need of free will. Following Russell I would say that 
free will could perhaps be the ability of choosing what seems to be the 
stupider choice, ... and freedom could perhaps be the ability to reject 
that stupider solution. I should think a little more about that.


Bruno

  





Reply via email to