What is the use of free will?

[STT]

We can without doubt agree that we are rational agents. By rational I mean we act or decide based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Rationality is important when it comes to decision in a situation which is defined as a set of prioritized options. A rational decision is defined as a decision which the agent always choose the best option. We however sometimes have problem with producing a set of prioritized options since our mental capacity just allows us to give qualitative weight to options rather than quantitative weight. This can cause a problem because options could have almost the same weights in a given situation. Now suppose that we are forced to decide in such a situation where options has the same weights. Of course we can decide on this situation using our free will but this decision has no advantage compared to random decision.

So to summarize we choose the best option among a set of prioritized options and our free decision does not have any advantage compared to a random decision when options have the same weight. So the question is what is the use of free will?

 

[po18guy]

A good hint is given in Sirach, Chapter 15:10-22 (bolding mine):

For wisdom came forth from God: for praise shall be with the wisdom of God, and shall abound in a faithful mouth, and the sovereign Lord will give praise unto it. 11 Say not: It is through God, that she is not with me: for do not thou the things that he hateth. 12 Say not: He hath caused me to err: for he hath no need of wicked men. 13 The Lord hateth all abomination of error, and they that fear him shall not love it. 14 God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. 15 He added his commandments and precepts. 16 If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee. 17 He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. 18 Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him: 19 For the wisdom of God is great, and he is strong in power, seeing all men without ceasing. 20 The eyes of the Lord are towards them that fear him, and he knoweth all the work of man. 21 He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man license to sin: 22 For he desireth not a multitude of faithless and unprofitable children.

 

[Vonsalza]

We can without doubt agree that we are rational agents. By rational I mean we act or decide based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

We can also, without a doubt, agree that there is a paradoxical relationship between “acting as an individual” and “acting as a group member”. Actions that benefited self could have been directed toward the group and actions that benefited the group could have been directed toward self.

Now suppose that we are forced to decide in such a situation where options has the same weights. Of course we can decide on this situation using our free will but this decision has no advantage compared to random decision.

When the options are truly equal, we must freeze. See “Buridan’s ***”. A “tie-breaker” essentially involves refuting the equality of the choice.

To answer the OP, Oxford gives “free will” as “The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion”. The “use of free will” is the exercise thereof. Reformulated it would rationally be:
“The exercise of the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the exercise of the ability to act at one’s own discretion.”

 

[MT1926]

A rational decision is defined as a decision which the agent always choose the best option.

Not necessarily. You are not taking the word rational into context. Rational in this context does not mean sane or clear headed. The context of this statement is the agent. Therefore, the agent uses their “free willed” rational to come to a decision, which is their “free willed” best option.

For instance, I am a parent of 24 years. The 4th daughter was looking run down and getting headaches. My rational decision and best option was for her to stay home and rest on the weekends and regain her strength. Her rational best option was to go out and have fun with her friends. She kept getting run down so I took her for blood work and discovered she had mono. Now knowing the outcome which one of us made a rational decision and which one chose the free will “best option”?

Now suppose that we are forced to decide in such a situation where options has the same weights. Of course we can decide on this situation using our free will but this decision has no advantage compared to random decision.

As stated above you are always using your free will. Just because you choose to “freely” believe they have the same weight does not mean they have the same weight to me. Because from my “free will” perspective option A is the weightier of the 2.

So to summarize we choose the best option among a set of prioritized options and our free decision does not have any advantage compared to a random decision when options have the same weight. So the question is what is the use of free will?

You can not do anything without free will including choosing, weighing or prioritizing options. Free will is so deeply ingrained in us that we do not even realize we are using our free wills.

God Bless

 

[STT]

We can also, without a doubt, agree that there is a paradoxical relationship between “acting as an individual” and “acting as a group member”. Actions that benefited self could have been directed toward the group and actions that benefited the group could have been directed toward self.

I didn’t get the paradox. Could you please elaborate?

When the options are truly equal, we must freeze. See “Buridan’s ***”. A “tie-breaker” essentially involves refuting the equality of the choice.

We freeze first but we can decide if we are forced.

To answer the OP, Oxford gives “free will” as “The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion”. The “use of free will” is the exercise thereof. Reformulated it would rationally be:
“The exercise of the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the exercise of the ability to act at one’s own discretion.”

I don’t think if you get my point.

 

[STT]

Not necessarily. You are not taking the word rational into context. Rational in this context does not mean sane or clear headed. The context of this statement is the agent. Therefore, the agent uses their “free willed” rational to come to a decision, which is their “free willed” best option.

You don’t need free will to pick up the best option. Even a computer can prioritize a set of options and pick up the best.

For instance, I am a parent of 24 years. The 4th daughter was looking run down and getting headaches. My rational decision and best option was for her to stay home and rest on the weekends and regain her strength. Her rational best option was to go out and have fun with her friends. She kept getting run down so I took her for blood work and discovered she had mono. Now knowing the outcome which one of us made a rational decision and which one chose the free will “best option”?

You made the rational decision and your daughter decide based on her free will. But your daughter decision was not rational therefore there is this valid question that what is the use of free will?

As stated above you are always using your free will. Just because you choose to “freely” believe they have the same weight does not mean they have the same weight to me. Because from my “free will” perspective option A is the weightier of the 2.

That could be true but we are looking at the situation from one individual’s perspective.

You can not do anything without free will including choosing, weighing or prioritizing options. Free will is so deeply ingrained in us that we do not even realize we are using our free wills.

God Bless

That is not correct. Free will just comes to play when we want to make a decision. The whole process of prioritizing options is done without use of free will.

 

[MT1926]

You don’t need free will to pick up the best option. Even a computer can prioritize a set of options and pick up the best.

I must not be understanding your question. Could you give an example? I think the problem is as I stated I don’t agree with your initial statement.

We can without doubt agree that we are rational agents. By rational I mean we act or decide based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Rationality is important when it comes to decision in a situation which is defined as a set of prioritized options

I don’t agree “without a doubt” that we are rational agents. I think we used to be, but the world has changed and become very relativistic. People base their rational on their emotions not on reason or logic anymore. What is true and logical to me is based on my emotions, sure it might not be the norm but what is good for me is good and what is good for you is good. Pure relativism.

You made the rational decision and your daughter decide based on her free will. But your daughter decision was not rational therefore there is this valid question that what is the use of free will?

Sure to you an me her decision was not rational, but that was the point I was trying to make, in her mind it was.

That could be true but we are looking at the situation from one individual’s perspective.

Once again rational and logical are not the same thing. Times have changed, I believe people are using their free will in their decision making now more than ever. People don’t really care to think 3 steps ahead anymore. How will my decision affect others? It’s all about instant gratification anymore.

That is not correct. Free will just comes to play when we want to make a decision. The whole process of prioritizing options is done without use of free will.

Disagree, your priorities aren’t the same as mine, therefore freely choosing what is a top priority to you has everything to do with it.

I hope I am not coming off as harsh. I am just trying to point out that your initial statement is what is throwing off the entire argument.

If you could give a real world example that might help clear things up a bit.

 

[Vonsalza]

I didn’t get the paradox. Could you please elaborate?

Sure. In a given day, you have a finite amount of time and resources. You can spend them to develop the strength of the groups you’re a member of (church, work, social clubs, ect.) or you can spend them developing yourself (reading, playing, moon-lighting outside of work, ect).
Developing one comes at an opportunity cost to the other.
You need both to live.

Any better?

We freeze first but we can decide if we are forced.

Any tie-breakers are a refutation of the true equality of the choice. “I’ll always pick the first I saw” or “I’ll always pick the one on the left” presents a bias that impairs the equality of the choice.

I don’t think if you get my point.

Maybe. I thought you asked “What is the use of free will”. I gave a reasonably standardized definition of “free will” and added “The exercise of…” to denote “use”. Ergo, it is a reasonably derived definition of “the use of free will”, duly providing your “what is”.

It’s important to tend toward standardized definitions because it makes any conclusions you draw more meaningful and determinate to other people - especially within an academic field.
If your personal definition of “cat” is “a metal bar with sharpened edges meant for cutting”, your “cat-related” research will have little meaning the the broader cat-concerned community.

 

[STT]

I must not be understanding your question. Could you give an example? I think the problem is as I stated I don’t agree with your initial statement.

What I meant is that if you always pick up the best option if you decide rationally. You could pick up not the best deciding freely. That is true because we are rational being. The question however is that what is the use of free will if it allows you to pick up the bad option.

I don’t agree “without a doubt” that we are rational agents. I think we used to be, but the world has changed and become very relativistic. People base their rational on their emotions not on reason or logic anymore. What is true and logical to me is based on my emotions, sure it might not be the norm but what is good for me is good and what is good for you is good. Pure relativism.

Rationality or emotion, that doesn’t make any difference. Still the question of what is the use of free will is valid.

Sure to you an me her decision was not rational, but that was the point I was trying to make, in her mind it was.

The question is whether her decision was the best from her perspective. If yes, then there is no room for free decision therefore there is no use of free will.

Once again rational and logical are not the same thing. Times have changed, I believe people are using their free will in their decision making now more than ever. People don’t really care to think 3 steps ahead anymore. How will my decision affect others? It’s all about instant gratification anymore.

People in fact use their free will to stop to think a few step ahead. This is bad therefore this question rises again that what is the use of free will.

Disagree, your priorities aren’t the same as mine, therefore freely choosing what is a top priority to you has everything to do with it.

I hope I am not coming off as harsh. I am just trying to point out that your initial statement is what is throwing off the entire argument.

If you could give a real world example that might help clear things up a bit.

We prioritize options based on like, dislike and emotions. You like this more than that then you put this higher in your prioritized options. Your emotion could come to play a role too then you give a weight to it as well.

 

[Wesrock]

It’s more god-like… in the image of God.

 

[STT]

Sure. In a given day, you have a finite amount of time and resources. You can spend them to develop the strength of the groups you’re a member of (church, work, social clubs, ect.) or you can spend them developing yourself (reading, playing, moon-lighting outside of work, ect).
Developing one comes at an opportunity cost to the other.
You need both to live.

Any better?

That I already know. My question is what is paradox here? There is of course a conflict of interest in here.

Any tie-breakers are a refutation of the true equality of the choice. “I’ll always pick the first I saw” or “I’ll always pick the one on the left” presents a bias that impairs the equality of the choice.

Our decision could be biased when the options have the same weight but we still can decide freely.

Maybe. I thought you asked “What is the use of free will”. I gave a reasonably standardized definition of “free will” and added “The exercise of…” to denote “use”. Ergo, it is a reasonably derived definition of “the use of free will”, duly providing your “what is”.

It’s important to tend toward standardized definitions because it makes any conclusions you draw more meaningful and determinate to other people - especially within an academic field.
If your personal definition of “cat” is “a metal bar with sharpened edges meant for cutting”, your “cat-related” research will have little meaning the the broader cat-concerned community.

I agree with your definition but I am afraid that I have to repeat myself: So to summarize we choose the best option among a set of prioritized options and our free decision does not have any advantage compared to a random decision when options have the same weight. So the question is what is the use of free will?

 

[STT]

It’s more god-like… in the image of God.

I don’t understand how your statement is related to this thread.

 

[Wesrock]

I agree with your definition but I am afraid that I have to repeat myself: So to summarize we choose the best option among a set of prioritized options and our free decision does not have any advantage compared to a random decision when options have the same weight. So the question is what is the use of free will?

If you’re looking at this as purely a physiological, materialist issue, you’re not going to find an answer.

 

[STT]

If you’re looking at this as purely a physiological, materialist issue, you’re not going to find an answer.

Is there a way out?

 

[Wesrock]

Is there a way out?

A qualitative analysis, if you believe that not all truths about reality are quantifiable (something that can be measured).

 

[1Lord1Faith]

What I meant is that if you always pick up the best option if you decide rationally. You could pick up not the best deciding freely. That is true because we are rational being. The question however is that what is the use of free will if it allows you to pick up the bad option.

You’ve got this backwards. We have free will so that we can choose the good, not the bad. There is no rationale without free will - in so far as it concerns this discussion.

But it should go without saying that reason is not easily discernible, especially with younger people. And where are the lines that separate reason from knowledge, and free will from instinct? The bulk of an understanding of a topic like this comes from personal experiences; being able to articulate those experiences in a way meaningful to this topic is where the academic part comes into play.

 

[STT]

A qualitative analysis, if you believe that not all truths about reality are quantifiable (something that can be measured).

I didn’t get you. I think you get to same conclusion even if you could perform a qualitative analysis.

 

[STT]

You’ve got this backwards.

I don’t think so.

We have free will so that we can choose the good, not the bad.

That is a part of your teaching which is not correct. We as rational agent always do good without free will. Rationality is in favor of good. That is free will that allows us to do bad.

There is no rationale without free will - in so far as it concerns this discussion.

That is not correct. We can of course perform rational decision or act.

 

[MT1926]

What I meant is that if you always pick up the best option if you decide rationally. You could pick up not the best deciding freely. That is true because we are rational being. The question however is that what is the use of free will if it allows you to pick up the bad option.

Rationality or emotion, that doesn’t make any difference. Still the question of what is the use of free will is valid.

The question is whether her decision was the best from her perspective. If yes, then there is no room for free decision therefore there is no use of free will.

People in fact use their free will to stop to think a few step ahead. This is bad therefore this question rises again that what is the use of free will.

We prioritize options based on like, dislike and emotions. You like this more than that then you put this higher in your prioritized options. Your emotion could come to play a role too then you give a weight to it as well.

I tried but I do not think we are on the same page with our definition of rational or what free will means. That’s why I asked for a real world example. What you gave here is just more of your opinions.

God bless

 

[Vonsalza]

That I already know. My question is what is paradox here? There is of course a conflict of interest in here.

You cannot maximize both, but they both benefit you.

Our decision could be biased when the options have the same weight but we still can decide freely.

But then it’s not a perfectly equal choice at that point, now is it?

I agree with your definition but I am afraid that I have to repeat myself: So to summarize we choose the best option among a set of prioritized options and our free decision does not have any advantage compared to a random decision when options have the same weight. So the question is what is the use of free will?

Then by “use” you mean “purpose”? I’m guessing?

Then it’s to climb Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. But even then the priorities aren’t fixed. They are in constant flux as you gain information and consume resources you want more of.

Random decisions would not climb the hierarchy in a cogent way and the options within the hierarchy are not equally weighted. You don’t want more shelter when you’re trying to self-actualize.
They also change in weight depending on how fulfilled you are at each level.