

Ask HN: What exactly constitutes free will? - chirau

I am a fundamentalist. I believe free will means chaos. Convince me otherwise.<p>If free will means freedom of choice, then why is hate a crime? i.e. Hate crimes<p>If free will is what we actually pursue as society then why do we put constraints on it? i.e. Rules and laws.<p>Why is it that when the supreme court still criminalizes an act, a state can go ahead and legalize it but when the supreme court legalizes an act, no state can refute it?<p>So what is free will really, are we even pursuing it? Regulation, by definition is the restriction of free will.<p>So what do we really want, let&#x27;s not call it free will if it&#x27;s not absolute.
======
dmfdmf
> Convince me otherwise.

This statement presupposes free will.

Free will is not primarily a political concept but an epistemological concept
that has political implications.

Free will is an irreducible primary that many people today want to ignore,
deny, evade to shirk the responsibility of judgement.

Free will is validated by introspection and no one can convince you of its
axiomatic nature except your self, i.e. your own will, which makes it
paradoxically circular or self-referential but nevertheless it is at the base
of ALL knowledge.

~~~
chirau
So you would agree with me then that free will ultimately leads to chaos? It
would constitute freedom to hate openly and freedom to retaliate openly too.

~~~
Mimu
Not really. We have rules but free will allows you to do whatever you want.
Hence why hate crimes actually happens, or terrorists or whatever things we
have rules against.

Absence of rules may lead to chaos (I'm not entirely convinced since we didn't
have rules before, so absence of rules may actually lead to rules) but this
has nothing to do with free will imo.

------
sova
Well, your question asks on a few different levels. There is the personal
level, the societal/community level, and the over-encompassing reality.

On the personal level, we're restricted somewhat by our current situation, so
you have free will like a stream has the ability to curve paths down a
mountain. It could go left or right, but every decision branches, and if the
stream is going quickly, there is less choice involved, whereas if it is
running slowly or smoothly, there is a lot of directability.

On the societal level, our basic premise here in the United States is that we
are all entitled to life liberty and property, and conventionally we extend
this to happiness. Actions that don't impinge on another citizen's path to
these are considered alright, and I think that is a fine way to be: don't harm
others. Why? Well you wouldn't want it to happen to you, and in the world of
generalities (and overall reality) you could just as easily have been born on
the other end of that string/strand.

Then what would absolute free will be? Well, the ability to change your body
shape, change your environment by thinking.. perhaps even with less effort
than is involved in "thinking" with words and images. It's an interesting
question, but in general free will is the ability to direct your flow, it
doesn't necessarily entail being able to change the pre-existing flow, unless
you mean gradually. I find the river and stream metaphor extremely valuable in
this context, and have heard karma spoken of in a similar fashion.

Everything dissolves, you can make skillful actions and direct your stream to
goodness. Ideally, intelligent and sensitive people are directing their flows
to unbound potential, because as you can see, it is easy to continue into a
spiral that minimizes, whereas it is actually possible with effort to "flow
back up" the mountain, coming to a place of total potential, where you might
be able to experience or talk about an "absolute free will"

Thus, in my simpleton opinion, free will is not an absolute unless you are
directing your own capacities toward the experience of an absolute freedom.

The Supreme Court thing... could you provide an example?

~~~
chirau
I agree with most of what you said, except your definition of absolute free
will. I think the absolute one would mean doing whatever you desire and is in
your capacity. Changing shape and such are mere desires that we cannot
accomplish due to limitations of our nature. That does not take away from our
free will. Free will is the ability to do what we want and can do with our
resources. Free will is having the choice to kick you or cat for no reason. It
is also the freedom for both of you to retaliate.

So is free will ultimately what we desire or we rarely take time comprehend
what it comprises and its repercussions?

Supreme Court example: Marijuana is not legalized by the Supreme Court, but
states have individually legalized it. In the same light but in different
directions, gay marriage was legalized last week, can a state go ahead and
illegalize it?

~~~
sova
As far as I know, the supreme court has not ruled on controlled substances.
Those are established by congress (and the DEA) and states have their right to
have legislation that negates or otherwise "violates" congressional action.
Congress can always withhold monies for roads and infra, though, so they can
coerce states into cooperation in a different way.

The Marriage Equality action by the Supreme Court explicitly states that
states cannot illegalize same-sex marriage. Can a state illegalize it? No.

Can states legalize the sale of cannabis? Yes. Can the DEA still come in and
bust people in those states? Yes. Is that fucked up? You betcha.

