There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[DBT]

There's a much simpler way to look at it. It was just the wrong word to use. And I'm not motivated to fix the problem, or repair the machine.
EB

The wrong word was used on the Internet? Wow, that is bad. You should write up a report and send it to Grammar Central.

I think they send out merit badges. They may give you a nice shiny star or something....that would be nice, wouldn't it?

My point was, will is formed of an interaction between input and memory by means of neural architecture and its information processing activity, hence will cannot be defined as free

Do say 'free will' you have free/not free. If not precisely an oxymoron, it is a contradiction, a contradiction that is close enough to being an oxymoron.

 

[The AntiChris]

My point was, will is formed of an interaction between input and memory by means of neural architecture and its information processing activity, hence will cannot be defined as free

Non sequitur.

 

[DBT]

My point was, will is formed of an interaction between input and memory by means of neural architecture and its information processing activity, hence will cannot be defined as free

Non sequitur.

How so? How can will possibly be defined as 'free' considering it is shaped and formed by processes that it, conscious will, is not even aware of from input, processing to its own conscious representation by means of brain activity?

Oh, it's a sequitur all right. No doubt. Will is whatever the brain is doing. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is will, simply will, not magical, not free to do as it pleases...

 

[The AntiChris]

How can will possibly be defined as 'free' considering it is shaped and formed by processes that it, conscious will, is not even aware of from input, processing to its own conscious representation by means of brain activity?

The only way this question makes sense is if it is assumed that "free" can only mean free from any prior causal conditions. Without any supporting argument this is question-begging.

 

[DBT]

How can will possibly be defined as 'free' considering it is shaped and formed by processes that it, conscious will, is not even aware of from input, processing to its own conscious representation by means of brain activity?

The only way this question makes sense is if it is assumed that "free" can only mean free from any prior causal conditions. Without any supporting argument this is question-begging.

There is sufficient evidence to show that will has no independent agency from whatever the brain is doing in terms of consciousness/will formation. The evidence supports brain agency. The expression of consciousness and will as an aspect of consciousness is determined by brain activity,

That is what I was pointing out, that will is not the agency of decision making or action initiation, it is a conscious representation of prompt or urge as a part of conscious experience.....all produced by brain activity.

So, yes, if will is being shaped and formed by prior causal conditions and mechanisms, it makes no sense to classify will as being free.

 

[The AntiChris]

How can will possibly be defined as 'free' considering it is shaped and formed by processes that it, conscious will, is not even aware of from input, processing to its own conscious representation by means of brain activity?

The only way this question makes sense is if it is assumed that "free" can only mean free from any prior causal conditions. Without any supporting argument this is question-begging.

There is sufficient evidence to show that will has no independent agency from whatever the brain is doing in terms of consciousness/will formation. The evidence supports brain agency. The expression of consciousness and will as an aspect of consciousness is determined by brain activity,

That is what I was pointing out, that will is not the agency of decision making or action initiation, it is a conscious representation of prompt or urge as a part of conscious experience.....all produced by brain activity.

Sure, like everything else in the universe, 'will' is subject to prior causality.

So, yes, if will is being shaped and formed by prior causal conditions and mechanisms, it makes no sense to classify will as being free.

Once again, without supporting argument, this is another non-sequitur.

 

[ruby sparks]

The Antichris,

I can see where both of you are coming from. It is possible to disagree about whether 'free' is the right word or not.

Just out of interest, why do you think it is?

I tend to think it mostly isn't, With the caveat that it is arguably OK to use it if one means (and is understood by others to mean) a certain limited 'free' or degrees of freedom.

I do think there is a case for it being the wrong word in light of the folk psychology that appears to inform the use of the term at least quite often.

 

[The AntiChris]

The Antichris,

I can see where both of you are coming from. It is possible to disagree about whether 'free' is the right word or not.

Just out of interest, why do you think it is?

I'm not arguing either way.

I'm simply objecting to bad arguments. In this instance, I object to the unargued assumption that the word 'free' can only mean free from all deterministic causality when applied to 'will' (this particular meaning of 'free' is unique to the free will debate).

I do think there is a case for it being the wrong word in light of the folk psychology that appears to inform the use of the term at least quite often.

I agree a case can be made. But it's not been made by DBT - it's simply assumed (in fact he assumes it's the only prevailing usage).

 

[ruby sparks]

My guess is that DBT is using the term 'free' in the same way one might use the word 'perpetual' or 'random' insofar as there aren't, strictly speaking degrees of such things. That is of course only one way to look at the word 'free' in 'free will'.

When it comes to common usage, I think the average person's conceptions are at best complicated, perhaps even confused, perhaps even contradictory, and most of the time containing as an ingredient the sort of freedom which is very probably illusory.

I understand where DBT is coming from, in other words, and I think it's valid. But I also accept that there are other ways to define and use 'free' and 'free will'.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm simply objecting to bad arguments. In this instance, I object to the unargued assumption that the word 'free' can only mean free from all deterministic causality when applied to 'will' (this particular meaning of 'free' is unique to the free will debate).

You're absolutely right.

Here is an example of the use of "free" that doesn't refer to deterministic causality:

free agent
n. a person whose actions are not constrained by others

If we interpret free will along the same logic as is used in the case of free agent, I guess we will have to say that free will is the will of someone which is not constrained by the will of other people.

Rather different and perfectly innocuous and unproblematical.

Even DBT would have free will.

Maybe that's where the problem really is, though. People like DBT are free to deny free will exists at all.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I'm simply objecting to bad arguments. In this instance, I object to the unargued assumption that the word 'free' can only mean free from all deterministic causality when applied to 'will' (this particular meaning of 'free' is unique to the free will debate).

You're absolutely right.

Here is an example of the use of "free" that doesn't refer to deterministic causality:

free agent
n. a person whose actions are not constrained by others

If we interpret free will along the same logic as is used in the case of free agent, I guess we will have to say that free will is the will of someone which is not constrained by the will of other people.

Rather different and perfectly innocuous and unproblematical.

Even DBT would have free will.

Maybe that's where the problem really is, though. People like DBT are free to deny free will exists at all.
EB

yeah, yeah, yeah. Unfortunately man's primary predator is man and man is a social animal so ......

...if your agency argument is applied it is falsified immediately because humans always need take into account how what they are doing is seen by others. Ergo free from others is a non-starter unless one is invincible and one knows it or one doesn't give a turd about consequences, both of which are vanishingly unlikely if one is to continue behaving.

Evolution police statement or drive by whichever gives you comfort.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Who is it you implied was being irrelevant?

FDI

Sure it's irrelevant if you are satisfied with an observation and an effect. Oh, wait, why is the observation relevant to the effect? It isn't. Wow. So your goal is to juxtapose two datum and declare illusion irrelevant. Magnifico chango, oh oh.

Speakpigeon response

Well, I'm sure you will be only too pleased to give as many examples as you possibly can of me doing whatever it is you're saying I'm doing.

Amazing. Answer precedes the query. How dat happen?*

* self evident to most

Sorry, what I thought was obvious, not only to all but also to you, is that I expected you to quote me saying wrong things. You know about quotes, don't you? And you know what "example" means?

So, go on, amaze us like you always know how to.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

yeah, yeah, yeah. Unfortunately man's primary predator is man and man is a social animal so ......

...if your agency argument is applied it is falsified immediately because humans always need take into account how what they are doing is seen by others. Ergo free from others is a non-starter unless one is invincible and one knows it or one doesn't give a turd about consequences, both of which are vanishingly unlikely if one is to continue behaving.

Evolution police statement or drive by whichever gives you comfort.

I now realise how useless it would be to argue anything. Life must look pretty bleak from your vantage point. And, obviously, you're not even free to dislike it there.
EB

Post Script

Maybe I should explain. Fast could have done that too, I guess.

So, I think what happens here is that FDI and DBT, among other potential serial offenders, choose to interpret compound expression A + B literally, i.e. they choose to assume that the meaning of A + B is A's meaning plus B's meaning. In the case of free will, this leads inevitably (no freedom here) to take free literally and therefore conclude there's no possible free will in a deterministic universe.

Doing this should lead also inevitably to dismiss all expressions starting with the word "free" (at least if we assume we're in a deterministic universe).

So, the prisoner released out of prison still won't be a free man. Sorry, love, it's tough, but.

Also, even if somebody tells you, "you're free to go", don't believe that for a moment. You won't ever be free to go.

Also, the West has for years shouted from the roof-tops about its free press, but we know better, don't we?

That's not all. Sick or not, you won't ever be free of disease. Of any disease! You think you feel good now? Well, maybe you need to see a doctor, before it's too late.

And whatever the government will tell you, nothing is ever free of taxes, even if it's just the case there is no tax.

Beware on the highway, too, even though the lane you're on is clear and unobstructed, it won't be a free lane. So, remain vigilant, or maybe just switch to another lane, one which will be more obviously non-free.

And, pupils the world over, if you think you can enjoy free time between classes, then, think again, there's no such a thing as free time.

Ah, and, yes, scientists! Scientists the world over, you too, you think you're so smart you know there are atoms with free energy levels? You triple idiots! There is no such a thing!

I guess that will do.

 

[fromderinside]

Sometimes free means unused, unassociated, said the triple idiot.

As lunch counter chatter one can carve out, new hobby of mine, bird objects that are passable observables. So it is with 'free' will. Propose an unlikely, nay, false likelihood and a 'discussion' epidemic is created. Fantasy, is underway. I've little truck for either. Free will is as dead as is a wooden bird. RIP

 

[fast]

A wooden bird is not dead.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's not dead bird, but is is dead. Or at least I wood say so.

[/pointless pedantry]

 

[fast]

It's not dead bird, but is is dead. Or at least I wood say so.

[/pointless pedantry]

What's dead?

 

[ruby sparks]

It's when something isn't alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death

 

[Juma]

I'm simply objecting to bad arguments. In this instance, I object to the unargued assumption that the word 'free' can only mean free from all deterministic causality when applied to 'will' (this particular meaning of 'free' is unique to the free will debate).

You're absolutely right.

Here is an example of the use of "free" that doesn't refer to deterministic causality:

free agent
n. a person whose actions are not constrained by others

If we interpret free will along the same logic as is used in the case of free agent, I guess we will have to say that free will is the will of someone which is not constrained by the will of other people.

Rather different and perfectly innocuous and unproblematical.

Even DBT would have free will.

Maybe that's where the problem really is, though. People like DBT are free to deny free will exists at all.
EB

Yeah. And if we define ”free will” to mean something that everything has, then everything has free will....
Bloody useless argument, isnt it?

 

[fast]

It's when something isn't alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death

Lol

No, not what does it mean. What is purportedly dead? The word "is?" I assumed one of those was supposed to be "it." What is it (the object of the pronoun) that is being spoken of as something that is dead?