If you built your self a really great organic robot and wanted to grant it free will what "restrictions" would you apply to it's freedom of choice?
Note: I am aware that I have uttered a self contradiction with the use of restrictions. However I justify this by suggesting that when we think of free-will we often forget what absolute free will entails.

To me it is an extremely dynamic thing and it's dynamic-ness is only available if freewill is entirely unfetted and without any inherant built in restrictions or limitations. "wanting to do something is not necessarilly being able to do something"

It is true, I guess, that free will is self conditioned and conditioned by our social existance but I ask, does this effect our potential to be absolutely free willed?
care to discuss?

If you built your self a really great organic robot and wanted to grant it free will what "restrictions" would you apply to it's freedom of choice?

You must realize...(even though you stated it) that to create something with free will it must have absolute power over itself and must realize its limits...if you are to put limits on it. Boundary is something like a wall in real world...it exists before us as we perceive it and thus we are forced to avoid it.

You must realize...(even though you stated it) that to create something with free will it must have absolute power over itself and must realize its limits...if you are to put limits on it. Boundary is something like a wall in real world...it exists before us as we perceive it and thus we are forced to avoid it.
yes, I guess this is an area I wanted to explore.
Just because we are limited by reality as to what we can or can not do does not necessarilly equate to the limitations on freewill. Certainly it limits what you may wish to do with your freewill.
Thus free will may be absolute but is constantly frustrated by the limitations placed on it by reality.

Afterall we are aware of most of those limitations. Thus the frustration those limitations can generate, insome case quite severely.

But doesn't this simply imply the our mere awareness of absolute freedom is in fact our awareness of our absolute freewill in frustration?

thinking:
I am attempting to draw a distinction between free will and freedom of action.

i.e. a prisoner in Jail still retains freewill yet his movement is restricted by his imprisonment.

i may not be able to do anything i want but i can pretty much think anything that i can think of.

i may not be able to do anything i want but i can pretty much think anything that i can think of.
exactly!:)
and what limits your capacity or gamut of thought?

Just because we are limited by reality as to what we can or can not do does not necessarilly equate to the limitations on freewill.

Of course it does! Free will can't possibly only mean being able to think about something ...that's "imagination" (or some other term). Free will means, and implies, the will to act, not just to think.

i.e. a prisoner in Jail still retains freewill yet his movement is restricted by his imprisonment.

That's so foolish and silly that I'm tempted to call it nothing but psycho-babble ....and that's if I'm being generous and kind.

"Free will" is a concept only, never to see the true light of reality. It's nothing but a psycho-babble word that has virtually no true meaning in our lives ...other than perhaps to frustrate some of you pseudo-philosophers.

Baron Max

Of course it does! Free will can't possibly only mean being able to think about something ...that's "imagination" (or some other term). Free will means, and implies, the will to act, not just to think.



That's so foolish and silly that I'm tempted to call it nothing but psycho-babble ....and that's if I'm being generous and kind.

"Free will" is a concept only, never to see the true light of reality. It's nothing but a psycho-babble word that has virtually no true meaning in our lives ...other than perhaps to frustrate some of you pseudo-philosophers.

Baron Max

Ahh! Baron Von Max, you again, have demonstrated the credibility of my M.F.S.O.I philosophy. Again I thank you for doing so.

Your opinion stands noted. Prove to me that free will doesn't exist in words bigger than 3 letters and prove my M.F.S.O.I theory wrong.:D

Christ read existentialism is a humanism
Simple
1.
Google
2.
existentialism is a humanism
3.
enter

4.
click the first, link i think it is

He describes some great things.

But as we are discussing it here instead of reading the facts or whatnot,
free will must exist in form.
We must define the terms.
That simple.

Maximum freedom is not obtained through minimum constraint - think of an astronaut cast loose from the ship: complete freedom of movement, cannot actually go anywhere except where already aimed. A fish constrained by water pressure and friction has much more freedom.

Or think of choosing with no constraint on the choice - an infinite number of choices, no reason to pick any of them: No more "freedom of choice" than a grain in a sandpile.

Maximum freedom comes with the right kind and degree of constraint.

Maximum freedom is not obtained through minimum constraint - think of an astronaut cast loose from the ship: complete freedom of movement, cannot actually go anywhere except where already aimed. A fish constrained by water pressure and friction has much more freedom.

Or think of choosing with no constraint on the choice - an infinite number of choices, no reason to pick any of them: No more "freedom of choice" than a grain in a sandpile.

Maximum freedom comes with the right kind and degree of constraint.
Do you think it worth drawing the distinction between free will and freedom?
I would contend that even if there were only 3 choices to choose from one can have be free to choose which one.

So how does freedom equate to free will?

An astronaught adrift in a vacuum may have absolute free will but he is also almost absolutely frustrated in the use of that will.

*by frustration I mean in a more legal sense. In that his ability to act on his will or as he wills is rendered impossible or compromised. Thus frustrated.

Now maybe someone can tell me why that statement is incorrect or what is wrong with it as it seems obvious to me that free will and the notion of freedom are not necessarily equal nor the same thing.

If you built your self a really great organic robot and wanted to grant it free will what "restrictions" would you apply to it's freedom of choice?I'm not sure that this could work. I think I understand where you are coming from - but "robots" are tools - and thus Asimov's Laws would be an ideal starting point.

As soon as you no longer think of them as tools and want to give them total free-will then you have to start thinking of them not as robots but as proper artificial life-forms.

And there could be no restrictions on their freedom of choice - as to do so would begin a whole spiralling level of detail for possible circumstances that would make them more akin to tools than what I think you are thinking of.

For example - an obvious "restriction" would be: Do Not Harm.
With this you set up any number of dilemmas: the robot is in a position where it must kill 1 person to save 1,000,000...?

Okay - amend it to "Do Not Harm through action or inaction" but then you get the dilemma of saving X or saving Y but not able to do both...?

What makes us "alive" is that we only have restrictions that we impose upon ourselves, through our upbringing, education and intelligence.
You would therefore have to let these "robots" develop their own restrictions if you intend to separate them from tools.

Instead of restrictions, there are other things you could do such as give them the inherent knowledge that they are robots. They can then build this into their judgement etc. But then what of the robot that judges itself higher in the pecking order than human?

It is a tricky question you ask - and not one I think that can be answered satisfactorily and still retain the essence of what it is I think you are after.

Do you merely want tools that have an element of free-will, more akin to the prisoner - able to think lots but actually do little, or do you want a robot that is a form of life that would be safe for us to interact with and whose destiny is, as much as possible, in its own hands?

Do you think it worth drawing the distinction between free will and freedom? Of course.My response was to this:
It is true, I guess, that free will is self conditioned and conditioned by our social existance but I ask, does this effect our potential to be absolutely free willed?

My guess is that up to the right amount and kind, social conditioning and so forth increase one's actual freedom of will - just as friction and so forth increase one's actual freedom of motion.

"Absolute" freedom of will, like "absolute" freedom of motion, would defeat itself.

Of course.My response was to this:


My guess is that up to the right amount and kind, social conditioning and so forth increase one's actual freedom of will - just as friction and so forth increase one's actual freedom of motion.

"Absolute" freedom of will, like "absolute" freedom of motion, would defeat itself.
...and I apologise for not mentioning my agreement. You have posited an interestng thought.
free will vs freedom have an inverse relationship in this sense.

For example:
We are born into a universe of limited movement. we have barriers every where and as you have suggested with out those barriers we have nothing to excercise our free will against. Nothing to work with would equate to no freedom at all. You could draw this as a >< where the threshhold would be in the center of the cross. Interesting...hmmmmmm....

How ever my arguement is really about how this quality of freedom would actually effect the absoluteness of freewill or just simply the action of freewill.

This issue could also spread into areas such as the notion of subjective self validation [right and wrong]

"we know what is right for ourselves but we are constantly frustrated in some ways to achieving it."

But you raise and interesting line of enquiry which I shall ponder on some. thanks:) and maybe post a little later....