Free Will — The Grand Equivocation

2012.06.01   prev     next

EVER puzzled over the question of free will? Ever wondered why it’s been such a vexing problem for pretty much the entirety of human history?

Well, at the risk (nay, certainty) of sounding like a pompous ass, I’m going to solve the puzzle of free will right here and now. So brace yourself.

“Free will” (also often “choice”) is actually a grand equivocation. When this equivocation is recognized, clearly defined, and fully accepted, the puzzle of free will disappears completely, and the solution is obvious.

An equivocation is when a word (or phrase) is used to mean two very different things. This can lead to all kinds of reasoning errors because, by switching back and forth between the two definitions in mid-logic stream, you can make the impossible seem possible. (Note: I first described this equivocation four years ago an update to the article “Free Will and Population Statistics.”)

The key to dispelling confusion created by an equivocation is to clearly define the different definitions of the term, then force oneself to unambiguously refer to one definition or another when discussing the subject.

Definition A: “Free Will” or “Choice” means to logically analyze available options with the knowledge and preferences in one’s brain (or brain equivalent), determine which option is most likely to satisfy those preferences, then attempt to bring that option to fruition via action.

Definition B: “Free Will” or “Choice” means to select from available options in a way that is not dictated by the knowledge or preferences in one’s brain (or brain equivalent), and in fact is free from the dictates of any deterministic process.

Free Will A describes a strictly deterministic process, but one which is capable of a theoretically unlimited degree of sophistication, wisdom, etc.

Free Will B describes a non-deterministic process, which might be stochastic, or might be something else (but functionally equivalent to stochastic in our ability to analyze it).

A rock has no Free Will A or B (unless you count the pseudo-random brownian motion of its molecules to be a weak form of Free Will B).

A human clearly does have Free Will A, and perhaps also some degree of Free Will B if the human brain’s decision engine includes random or pseudo-random factors.

A cat also has Free Will A, though considerably less than a human. And an iPad does too, though considerably less than a cat (by most measures, I’m guessing).

Note that Free Will A is describing a combination of advanced sensory equipment, advanced sensory information processing ability, and advanced simulation and history-gathering ability, all of which conspire to permit the entity under discussion to prosper via intelligent choices. Indeed, Free Will A is equivalent to intelligence.

When asked if a particular object or entity has “free will” to “choose,” one must first know to which definition, A or B, the questioner is referring. If they can’t clarify, then they haven’t thought through their own question in sufficient detail to really understand what they’re asking (or to have a clear understanding of what the answer is going to be answering).

If you find that the questioner is unwilling to accept the above-delineated, A-vs.-B separation of definitions, then you have found a questioner who — whether they realize it or not — simply wants “free will” to be an ever-mysterious topic, and is exploiting equivocation to that end.

So, the solution is simple: Humans definitely have Free Will A, and we have far-and-away the biggest dose of it (so far) of anything on our planet. Simply put, we are head-and-shoulders more intelligent than anything else around here.

But we humans either don’t have Free Will B, or we do have it, but it’s just a little, random monkey wrench in our decision process. A slight degree of error. Or perhaps a useful game-theory tool by which we can make our decisions hard for our opponents to predict.

Conclusion

In a nutshell: When the distinction between Free Will A and Free Will B is brought front-and-center, it becomes clear that intelligence (Free Will A) is a deterministic process (though potentially hard to predict due to the butterfly effect).

The oft-made claim that, “If humans are deterministic, then we’re just dumb machines,” is not merely a confusion via equivocation — it’s actually false. Truly random or pseudo-random processes are inherently dumb. Deterministic machines are (or rather can be) very smart. Humans are smart machines.

prev     next