In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[Speakpigeon]

I have no clue what this is suppose to mean.who is theese scientists and what "freedom" are they talking about

Nor do I, as I already said, except that it's about human beings being free to carry out some specified actions.

There's also a statement (commentary may be the right word, I think) saying that this freedom effectively underpins (undergirds?) the sheer possibility of doing any science at all. But I'm not sure this is not assumed somewhat lightly.

The idea seems to be that this is the default position of most scientists, though no survey is referenced. Maybe it is, maybe not. In any case, the opinions of any number of scientists would be essentially irrelevant, although if that's what scientists believe about human freedom of action, it's not represented in this thread. Still, what really matters is that the notion of human freedom is clearly underwritten by mainstream science. Again, I don't pretend to understand what this means exactly but there's no doubt as to the words used.

and why couldnt you have explained that without me dragging it out of you?

I believe I have been very clear from the start. Yet, with no basis at all, you chose to term my post "ludicrous".

What was seriously ludicrous, though, was your comment then, saying, "Remeber that there are scientist researching totally moronic things as homopathy and panormality." This was just an idiotic remark as I had very clearly indicated it was something coming from mainstream physics, not quacks.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

It seems DBT has dropped into a bit more personal approach lately which I see as regrettable.

It's not by choice, I feel compelled to respond in the way that I get treated, I don't initiate personal comments but if someone engages with personal comments and value judgments, it's not something that can be ignored indefinitely. Moderation is practically non existent.

Still, are you a mirror or are you a representative of the empirical trades. I can only hope you will reconsider regardless of the absence of cops.

 

[ryan]

It's not by choice, I feel compelled to respond in the way that I get treated, I don't initiate personal comments but if someone engages with personal comments and value judgments, it's not something that can be ignored indefinitely. Moderation is practically non existent.

Still, are you a mirror or are you a representative of the empirical trades. I can only hope you will reconsider regardless of the absence of cops.

Of all of the classless and socially intolerable people on here, you're going to critique DBT's character?! There is a small number of people on TFT who don't need a lecture on social behavior, and DBT is one of them.

 

[Juma]

Nor do I, as I already said, except that it's about human beings being free to carry out some specified actions.

There's also a statement (commentary may be the right word, I think) saying that this freedom effectively underpins (undergirds?) the sheer possibility of doing any science at all. But I'm not sure this is not assumed somewhat lightly.

The idea seems to be that this is the default position of most scientists, though no survey is referenced. Maybe it is, maybe not. In any case, the opinions of any number of scientists would be essentially irrelevant, although if that's what scientists believe about human freedom of action, it's not represented in this thread. Still, what really matters is that the notion of human freedom is clearly underwritten by mainstream science. Again, I don't pretend to understand what this means exactly but there's no doubt as to the words used.

and why couldnt you have explained that without me dragging it out of you?

I believe I have been very clear from the start. Yet, with no basis at all, you chose to term my post "ludicrous".

What was seriously ludicrous, though, was your comment then, saying, "Remeber that there are scientist researching totally moronic things as homopathy and panormality." This was just an idiotic remark as I had very clearly indicated it was something coming from mainstream physics, not quacks.
EB

What scientists are you talking about? Can you give one example? And reference to a text where they discuss this?

 

[popsthebuilder]

I thought free will meant not persuaded. Not blackmailed or beaten into someone else's will.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

 

[DBT]

Still, are you a mirror or are you a representative of the empirical trades. I can only hope you will reconsider regardless of the absence of cops.

Of all of the classless and socially intolerable people on here, you're going to critique DBT's character?! There is a small number of people on TFT who don't need a lecture on social behavior, and DBT is one of them.

Thank you, ryan. It was starting to look like nobody could see what I was responding to, only my reaction. The other party, of course, always being the tragic victim, and never the instigator. Pure as the driven snow.

 

[DBT]

I thought free will meant not persuaded. Not blackmailed or beaten into someone else's will.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

That is a common reference. But if it was that simple, why the centuries of debate on the subject of free will?

As I said earlier about specific references (words being symbols), in this instance the word 'free' relates specifically to an absence of coercion and not to the nature and state of will (volition), which functions on the principle of neural architecture, inputs and memory function regardless of the presence or absence of coercion.

Removing the handcuffs from the prisoner, he may be described to be free from the constraints of the handcuffs, but not free from the confines of his cell, not free from the confines of his prison, not free from the mental condition that put him into that position. The word free being related to specific conditions within the system, which is not necessary representative of the condition of the system as a whole.

So being free from coercion is not necessarily 'freedom' of will. Being free from coercion says nothing about the nature and state of the brain/mind/will regardless of the absence of coercion.

And so the debate rolls on for centuries.

Or until conclusive evidence from neuroscience settles the issue once and for all.

 

[The AntiChris]

Or until conclusive evidence from neuroscience settles the issue once and for all.

This is a mistaken view based on a misunderstanding of compatibilism.

The libertarian//comptaibilist dispute is a philosophical dispute not a disagreement about the scientific facts.

Compatibilism makes no scientific claims about brain neurology.

 

[DBT]

Or until conclusive evidence from neuroscience settles the issue once and for all.

This is a mistaken view based on a misunderstanding of compatibilism.

I have said that compatibilism is irrelevant....a semantic construct, and explained why it is mere word jugglery (in the words of a philosopher) and therefore irrelevant to the debate, it's a quagmire.

''Compatibilist views of free will hold that free will is compatible with causal determinism. Classical compatibilists argued that determinism does not entail that agents lack alternative possibilities. They often advanced conditional accounts of alternatives (eg, the agent can do otherwise if, were she to want to do otherwise, she would). In more recent times, compatibilists have often denied that we need a power to do otherwise for freedom. Most contemporary compatibilists hold that free will is compatible with but does not require determinism. So-called Hobartian compatibilists hold that determinism is required for free will.''

 

[Speakpigeon]

What scientists are you talking about?

Mainstream physics. I'm not one hundred percent sure it still is but I'm one hundred percent sure it was only a few years back.

Can you give one example?

I certainly could but I don't want to. I find it bewildering that the swarm of people here posing as scientifically literate should be ignorant of it.

Also I'm not interested in a discussion about this. The point is that the obvious failure to join the dots in this respect is evidence that the discussion on free will is almost exclusively ideological rather than rational.

And reference to a text where they discuss this?

You are smart enough and scientifically litterate enough to find out all by yourself. You'll know that's it when you see it. Come back when you do.
EB

 

[Togo]

This is a mistaken view based on a misunderstanding of compatibilism.

I have said that compatibilism is irrelevant

Irrelevant to what?

A fairly basic definition:
Relevance is the concept of one topic being connected to another topic in a way that makes it useful to consider the first topic when considering the second.
Suggests that for something to be relevant or irrelevant, it needs something to be relevant or irrelevant to.

I thought free will meant not persuaded. Not blackmailed or beaten into someone else's will.

That is a fairly standard compatibilist definition of free will, yes.

 

[Juma]

Mainstream physics. I'm not one hundred percent sure it still is but I'm one hundred percent sure it was only a few years back.

Can you give one example?

I certainly could but I don't want to. I find it bewildering that the swarm of people here posing as scientifically literate should be ignorant of it.

Also I'm not interested in a discussion about this. The point is that the obvious failure to join the dots in this respect is evidence that the discussion on free will is almost exclusively ideological rather than rational.

And reference to a text where they discuss this?

You are smart enough and scientifically litterate enough to find out all by yourself. You'll know that's it when you see it. Come back when you do.
EB

What the heck? I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, how could I then search for it?

 

[Togo]

It seems DBT has dropped into a bit more personal approach lately which I see as regrettable.

It's not by choice, I feel compelled to respond in the way that I get treated,

Pretty sure it is a choice. If you literally have no control over your actions when you feel someone has mistreated you, then I can't see how it would be safe for you to be out in public. I assume what you mean is that you don't feel you should have to restrain yourself in such circumstances.

The problem there is that your perceptions of whether you've been mistreated will differ from other people's. Two or more people adopting that as a standard of behaviour means that threads will inevitably descend into insults - it's just a matter of time.

I don't initiate personal comments

eh, no one thinks they do.

but if someone engages with personal comments and value judgments, it's not something that can be ignored indefinitely.

I'm pretty sure there are other options besides ignoring the issue, and deliberate abuse. We should exhaust those.

Of course I am. As there are two sides to a debate, any debate, it is quite obvious that one side is going to get criticism from the opposition.

Which you yourself get to deal with in numerous threads where other posters do not agree with what you say, claim or argue.

It's a no brainer, but that wasn't your point, was it?

No, particularly since I'm not a compatibilist, don't agree with AntiChris' position, and prefer to deal with philosophy rather than debate.

No, my point was that he (and others) were making exactly the same criticisms of your position that I had been. Criticisms that you attribute to personal motives on my part.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Don't you start again!
EB

 

[Togo]

This is also an example of why compatibilist free will is defined the way it is - because it's concerned with moral agency. In this case whether DBT behaviour is determined or not is largely irrelevant. What matters is whether he is being coerced or forced in some way, or whether he acts in accordance with his (unforced) will. The neurological model of 'will', or the dictionary definition of 'free will' are both irrelevant to this point, which concerns the moral question of whether he was suffering from such undue influence on his actions by other actors as to render his choice moot.

Compatibilism is the idea that this sense of will and moral agency is what most people mean by will, rather, than the more absolute definitions used in most arguments for incompatibalism. I call myself an incompatibalist because I don't agree that this fully captures what most people mean by will, and don't agree that more absolute definitions are limited to rarefied or philosophical discussions. It's not because of any claim that people don't in fact have the kind of free will that compatibalists are talking about. Hence I use the formula, which you'll see a lot of in the literature, that compatibalism is true but uninteresting. Almost everyone thinks we have compatibilist free will, it's whether that what's people tend to mean by free will that's in dispute.

DBT's statement that compatibalism is incoherent is one I'd need to see some evidence for. The idea that we can simply follow the dictionary's definition to find a single standard meaning of free will is universally opposed, not because all his critics have formed some kind of united opposition to him, but because it misses the point of the discussion almost entirely. Wrong is not equivalent to incoherent, they're quite separate claims. A dictionary simply records usage, rather than proscribe it. A claim that X really means Y in philosophy is not a claim of popular usage, but a claim of logic, that one is a better descriptor of what is meant than the other.

 

[PyramidHead]

This is also an example of why compatibilist free will is defined the way it is - because it's concerned with moral agency. In this case whether DBT behaviour is determined or not is largely irrelevant. What matters is whether he is being coerced or forced in some way, or whether he acts in accordance with his (unforced) will. The neurological model of 'will', or the dictionary definition of 'free will' are both irrelevant to this point, which concerns the moral question of whether he was suffering from such undue influence on his actions by other actors as to render his choice moot.

Compatibilism is the idea that this sense of will and moral agency is what most people mean by will, rather, than the more absolute definitions used in most arguments for incompatibalism. I call myself an incompatibalist because I don't agree that this fully captures what most people mean by will, and don't agree that more absolute definitions are limited to rarefied or philosophical discussions. It's not because of any claim that people don't in fact have the kind of free will that compatibalists are talking about. Hence I use the formula, which you'll see a lot of in the literature, that compatibalism is true but uninteresting. Almost everyone thinks we have compatibilist free will, it's whether that what's people tend to mean by free will that's in dispute.

DBT's statement that compatibalism is incoherent is one I'd need to see some evidence for. The idea that we can simply follow the dictionary's definition to find a single standard meaning of free will is universally opposed, not because all his critics have formed some kind of united opposition to him, but because it misses the point of the discussion almost entirely. Wrong is not equivalent to incoherent, they're quite separate claims. A dictionary simply records usage, rather than proscribe it. A claim that X really means Y in philosophy is not a claim of popular usage, but a claim of logic, that one is a better descriptor of what is meant than the other.

I will just chime in here to add that some philosophers take determinism to its logical conclusion and say we should do away with the idea of moral responsibility altogether (Galen Strawson is the most vocal proponent of this idea). From Wikipedia:

In the free will debate, Strawson holds that there is a fundamental sense in which free will is impossible, whether determinism is true or not. He argues for this position with what he calls his "basic argument", which aims to show that no-one is ever ultimately morally responsible for their actions, and hence that no one has free will in the sense that usually concerns us. In its simplest form, the Basic Argument runs thus:

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
2. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.

Premise 3 does not require absolute determinism, just enough that the average person has little to no control over "the way you are" due to genes, environmental conditioning, etc. But if determinism is total, premise 3 is definitely true.

 

[DBT]

I have said that compatibilism is irrelevant

Irrelevant to what?

If you'd been paying attention, you'd know what I said. So I wouldn't have to repeat what I've already provided. Which I'm not going to do.

I suggest you go back and read what has been said. If you still don't understand why compatibalism is an ideology built on semantics, there is no hope of you understanding and it would be better that we don't waste our time.

 

[DBT]

It's not by choice, I feel compelled to respond in the way that I get treated,

Pretty sure it is a choice. If you literally have no control over your actions when you feel someone has mistreated you, then I can't see how it would be safe for you to be out in public. I assume what you mean is that you don't feel you should have to restrain yourself in such circumstances.

You know that any interaction between us is going to go badly...yet you yourself have initiated it numerous times and when things inevitably go badly, you accuse me of stalking you, and picking on you. That is why I'd rather not deal with you.

I'd suggest that the better choice would be to avoid the confrontation....and yet here you are!! Again. You have made the choice to engage in another conflict. Why is that? Why would you make such a stupid choice?

Just don't say that I initiated it.

This is your choice.

 

[DBT]

DBT's statement that compatibalism is incoherent is one I'd need to see some evidence for.

Which just shows that you don't have a clue. For one, I have provided links and quotes for everything that I've put forward. It is the standard argument against compatibalism.

This is why I don't like dealing with you. Your pull these remarks out of thin air, ignoring everything I've said in order to pursue your own game.

 

[Togo]

I will just chime in here to add that some philosophers take determinism to its logical conclusion and say we should do away with the idea of moral responsibility altogether (Galen Strawson is the most vocal proponent of this idea). From Wikipedia:

In the free will debate, Strawson holds that there is a fundamental sense in which free will is impossible, whether determinism is true or not. He argues for this position with what he calls his "basic argument", which aims to show that no-one is ever ultimately morally responsible for their actions, and hence that no one has free will in the sense that usually concerns us. In its simplest form, the Basic Argument runs thus:

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
2. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.

Premise 3 does not require absolute determinism, just enough that the average person has little to no control over "the way you are" due to genes, environmental conditioning, etc. But if determinism is total, premise 3 is definitely true.

Yeah... I've never been convinced by Strawson.

For example, in the sequence of logic above, I'm trying to imagine a definition of 'ultimately responsible' that would make both 2) and 3) uncontrovertially true, and still fit the concept of moral responsibility.

I've never been able to tell if he's actually making an independent argument, or if he's just fudging the distinction between compatibilist and libertarian free will, by apparently covering both with the same wallpaper definition, and then assuming a logical framework that would invalidate both.