Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post - Bertrand Russell's Argument

5010 · Aug 23, 2006, 02:42 pm

Now even though I consider Russell's logic ok according to his concept of free will and omniscience, my experience of my own will doesn't seem like that at all. It is more me choosing one particular option based on what I want, which is based on the current state of my mind, which is based on the influence of information vs my thoughts. The former from memory and senses, the latter from a processing train that started in the past directed by what my mind did just before each moment of choice. So I prefer to use a concept of the will I experience both in myself and percieve in other objects.

That said, what I am offering to the thread doesn't really address Russell's point, because I am on different semantics which I find more practical.

I say free will is all about influence within a relationship within a scope. So If I say A's will is free from B's influence, I am speaking only of the relationship between A and B within present scope.

I don't think of "will" as something limited to people and gods. I consider the following statements meaningful according to how I think of "will":

"The will of Jupiter's weather is free from human influence."
"The will of George Bush is free from volconvo's influence."
"The will of a robot is free from human influence but a remote-controlled device is not" (assuming the former's sensors aren't getting information from humans)

Let's look at the 1st statement. If a weatherman were to solve Jupiter's weather and forecast jovial storms, is jovial weather no longer free from human influence? No.

Let's look into the last statement. Let's say the rc-device's will is controlled by its programmed responses to continuous human joystick input and the robot's will is controlled by its programmed responses to environmental sensors. Could we say that both wills are controlled by human design, and therefore by human influence? But the designers in the present aren't the same as they were when they designed it. They are older, with different knowledge and experience, or they may even be dead! The designer is not currently influencing the robot's design. So it is more accurate to say that their design was influenced by humans. And therefore neither's will was always free from human influence.

Do you find this way of thinking useful?

Aug 23, 2006, 02:42 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
5010 mostly harmless Location: USA Posts: 1,284	Now even though I consider Russell's logic ok according to his concept of free will and omniscience, my experience of my own will doesn't seem like that at all. It is more me choosing one particular option based on what I want, which is based on the current state of my mind, which is based on the influence of information vs my thoughts. The former from memory and senses, the latter from a processing train that started in the past directed by what my mind did just before each moment of choice. So I prefer to use a concept of the will I experience both in myself and percieve in other objects. That said, what I am offering to the thread doesn't really address Russell's point, because I am on different semantics which I find more practical. I say free will is all about influence within a relationship within a scope. So If I say A's will is free from B's influence, I am speaking only of the relationship between A and B within present scope. I don't think of "will" as something limited to people and gods. I consider the following statements meaningful according to how I think of "will": "The will of Jupiter's weather is free from human influence." "The will of George Bush is free from volconvo's influence." "The will of a robot is free from human influence but a remote-controlled device is not" (assuming the former's sensors aren't getting information from humans) Let's look at the 1st statement. If a weatherman were to solve Jupiter's weather and forecast jovial storms, is jovial weather no longer free from human influence? No. Let's look into the last statement. Let's say the rc-device's will is controlled by its programmed responses to continuous human joystick input and the robot's will is controlled by its programmed responses to environmental sensors. Could we say that both wills are controlled by human design, and therefore by human influence? But the designers in the present aren't the same as they were when they designed it. They are older, with different knowledge and experience, or they may even be dead! The designer is not currently influencing the robot's design. So it is more accurate to say that their design was influenced by humans. And therefore neither's will was always free from human influence. Do you find this way of thinking useful? - solo (my site)