What is free will?

[fromderinside]

Yes there are lots of causes and effects within a human being every instant, but every cause generates a single effect.

Yes. That's determinism.

Compatibilists don't dispute this.

It's quite pointless arguing against Incompatibilist free will with compatibilists. We agree with you.

The only thing we disagree about is the use of the words 'choice', 'free' and 'freedom'. You want these words expunged from the English language whereas compatibilists think that's silly.

I don't want - chock , gurgle, wheeze - choice nor will expunged from the dictionary. They are just inappropriate terms to be used in the Determinism discussion. We don't know the basis for these words because they cannot be explained as objective subjects in Determinism. We can explain them in discussion of subjective derivatives resulting from evolutionary systems arising in a deterministic world using best outcomes in those systems to reality.

That makes them part of an entirely different philosophical topic. One on the nature of social responses to best data coming from sensing reality from deterministic stimulation. Or as I've been putting it 'subjective systems resulting from deterministic reality'. Choice and will can be illusory consequences of social behavior in such systems. A philosophy based on the Cartesian observation of "Cognit ergo sum." A topic just as useful as Bridgeman's Operationalism

Operationalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

or

Aristotle on the human function, Aquinas on the beatific vision, and Kant on the highest good.
The meaning of life

The Meaning of Life (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[The AntiChris]

The only thing we disagree about is the use of the words 'choice', 'free' and 'freedom'. You want these words expunged from the English language whereas compatibilists think that's silly.

I don't want - chock , gurgle, wheeze - choice nor will expunged from the dictionary. They are just inappropriate terms to be used in the Determinism discussion.

By claiming that these terms are inappropriate , you're  begging the question (you're assuming your conclusion without arguing it).

 

[DBT]

you prefer to believe in free will

It's nothing about preference of belief. I've explained repeatedly, shown for a fact, that ••• is an identifiable thing within deterministic systems, as is the truth of °°° as pertains to that •••.

You fail to speak to ••• and °°° so you fail to do anything but level assertion fallacies about °°° and ••• regardless of how they are used or defined.

You reject the usefulness and meaningfulness of °°° and •••.

I repeat, anyone who is a serial killer or who harms children has a responsibility to kill themselves.

You are hand waving. Bluff and bluster. Nothing you have said addresses the fundamental issue of agency, that all events within a determined system are fixed by antecedents, no deviation, no possible modification: fixed outcomes.

Namely, actions fixed by antecedents are not freely chosen actions, and actions that are not freely chosen cannot be freely willed actions.

Goodbye compatibilism, your attempt at rationalization has no bearing on the argument.

 

[Jarhyn]

You are hand waving

Says the guy who does not actually address any of the points except with assertion fallacies

Nothing you have said addresses the fundamental issue of agency, that all events within a determined system are fixed by antecedents, no deviation, no possible modification: fixed outcomes

Nothing you have said addresses the fundamental issue that °°° and ••• do not require some unfixed outcome. All they require is: an acknowledgement of the process that LEADS to the outcome, and the ability to identify what that outcome will be, and/or what it was.

From their definitions, in fact, °°° and ••• can only exist when outcomes are fixed as a product of antecedent events.

Hello compatibilism.

 

[DBT]

Reasoned counterarguments have been given in abundance.

If you're so confident that you've given adequate counterarguments, why do you feel the need to bolster those arguments by accusing compatibilists of cowardice?

I don't recall accusing compatibilists of cowardice. Can you quote what you think I said? If you mean the article, they are not my words. I wouldn't put it that way

You and Silverstein come across as being outraged by compatibilists who in your view are attempting to "water down" the sacred "pure form of Free Will".

As I've said before, you come across as a zealot when you defend "pure" Free Will.

I don't agree with everything that is written in any article, or necessarily approve of how the author expresses him or herself. Only what is said about the issue, be it incompatibility or whatever.

You are making wild accusations as a means of defense.

However, to get to the point, as you appear to like yes or no questions, here is one for you;

Given that the given and accepted definition of determinism stipulates initial conditions and events thereafter are fixed by antecedents, no possible deviation, no possible modification, no possible alternate action: is a determined action a freely chosen action?

Yes or no?

 

[Jarhyn]

You are making wild accusations as a means of defense

No, they aren't. They making absolutely valid observations:

You made a No-True-Scotsman, posted it in your thread as a central feature, and now you are walking back from it.

 

[Jarhyn]

is a determined action a freely chosen action?

This is a loaded question in a few ways, not-even-wrong.

This question expands to "does determinism imply °°° or •••?" (no, that would be silly; many Determinism do not allow any kind of choice function, such as "that which determines the next bit sequence in a binary count")

Rather the question is "does °°° or ••• as an operating concept imply 'determined'?" (Yes, all freely chosen actions can only be made in deterministic systems, because °°° and ••• are undefined outside of deterministic systems)

You act as if this is not all readily observable

 

[The AntiChris]

Reasoned counterarguments have been given in abundance.

If you're so confident that you've given adequate counterarguments, why do you feel the need to bolster those arguments by accusing compatibilists of cowardice?

I don't recall accusing compatibilists of cowardice. Can you quote what you think I said? If you mean the article, they are not my words. I wouldn't put it that way

You and Silverstein come across as being outraged by compatibilists who in your view are attempting to "water down" the sacred "pure form of Free Will".

As I've said before, you come across as a zealot when you defend "pure" Free Will.

I don't agree with everything that is written in any article, or necessarily approve of how the author expresses him or herself. Only what is said about the issue, be it incompatibility or whatever.

When you quote the opinions of others (presumably in support of your position) how are readers supposed to establish precisely which elements represent your views?

However, to get to the point, as you appear to like yes or no questions, here is one for you;

Given that the given and accepted definition of determinism stipulates initial conditions and events thereafter are fixed by antecedents, no possible deviation, no possible modification, no possible alternate action: is a determined action a freely chosen action?

Yes or no?

Have you not understood anything Marvin has been explaining to you?

A [determined] action is freely chosen if it is done so without coercion or other morally relevant influence (what Marvin calls undue influence).

 

[fromderinside]

The only thing we disagree about is the use of the words 'choice', 'free' and 'freedom'. You want these words expunged from the English language whereas compatibilists think that's silly.

I don't want - chock , gurgle, wheeze - choice nor will expunged from the dictionary. They are just inappropriate terms to be used in the Determinism discussion.

By claiming that these terms are inappropriate , you're  begging the question (you're assuming your conclusion without arguing it).

If one looks to consequences for explanation one is not being deterministic. Top line from wiki "Determinism is the philosophical view that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes." Cause and effect. Its not outcome because of consequences. Future does not determine past. We look to history rather than we behave in accordance with the future.

 

[The AntiChris]

The only thing we disagree about is the use of the words 'choice', 'free' and 'freedom'. You want these words expunged from the English language whereas compatibilists think that's silly.

I don't want - chock , gurgle, wheeze - choice nor will expunged from the dictionary. They are just inappropriate terms to be used in the Determinism discussion.

By claiming that these terms are inappropriate , you're  begging the question (you're assuming your conclusion without arguing it).

If one looks to consequences for explanation one is not being deterministic. Top line from wiki "Determinism is the philosophical view that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes." Cause and effect. Its not outcome because of consequences. Future does not determine past. We look to history rather than we behave in accordance with the future.

I think you've replied to the wrong post. I haven't mentioned "consequences".

 

[DBT]

You are making wild accusations as a means of defense

No, they aren't. They making absolutely valid observations:

You made a No-True-Scotsman, posted it in your thread as a central feature, and now you are walking back from it.

The problem is that you have no understanding of the nature of the failure of compatibilism. Simply labelling free will as acting without force or coercion, according to ones will, fails because determined action has no choice but to proceed as determined.

That is the watering down of compatibilism and its failure to establish the reality of free will.

If will played an actual role in decision making, making a difference, you might be onto something, but as it doesn't, compatibilism is a failed definition (it can't be called an argument).

So take your 'No True Scotsman' and jam it.

 

[DBT]

Reasoned counterarguments have been given in abundance.

If you're so confident that you've given adequate counterarguments, why do you feel the need to bolster those arguments by accusing compatibilists of cowardice?

I don't recall accusing compatibilists of cowardice. Can you quote what you think I said? If you mean the article, they are not my words. I wouldn't put it that way

You and Silverstein come across as being outraged by compatibilists who in your view are attempting to "water down" the sacred "pure form of Free Will".

As I've said before, you come across as a zealot when you defend "pure" Free Will.

I don't agree with everything that is written in any article, or necessarily approve of how the author expresses him or herself. Only what is said about the issue, be it incompatibility or whatever.

When you quote the opinions of others (presumably in support of your position) how are readers supposed to establish precisely which elements represent your views?

I agree with Silverstein's assessment of compatibilism. That is the issue. I'm not responsible for his quips or extraneous comments.

It doesn't make the slightest difference to the argument.

However, to get to the point, as you appear to like yes or no questions, here is one for you;

Given that the given and accepted definition of determinism stipulates initial conditions and events thereafter are fixed by antecedents, no possible deviation, no possible modification, no possible alternate action: is a determined action a freely chosen action?

Yes or no?

Have you not understood anything Marvin has been explaining to you?

I have understood what he has been saying. I understood the compatibilist argument long before Marvin came onto this site....and I have been pointing out why it is flawed for a long time. too long.

The question is that after all this time, why do you not understand incompatibilism and the reasons why the compatibilist definition of free will fails?

A [determined] action is freely chosen if it is done so without coercion or other morally relevant influence (what Marvin calls undue influence).

See, that proves that you haven't grasped the basics of determinism, its implications or the nature of decision making.

Determinism means that actions are not freely chosen, they are determined by antecedents (which is not a matter of choice), where information input acting upon the state of the system determines/fixes outcome.

What is determined, which means no alternatives, the outcome is unconsciously fixed and represented fait accompli in conscious form. neither willed nor open to modification.

The determined action must necessarily proceed without hindrance as determined.

Silverstein (and many others) have explained this issue, yet you focus on trivial rhetoric....which wasn't far off the mark even if I wouldn't have put it that way.


Plus, you avoided the question.

Here it is again:

Given that the given and accepted definition of determinism stipulates initial conditions and events thereafter are fixed by antecedents, no possible deviation, no possible modification, no possible alternate action: is a determined action a freely chosen action?

Yes or no?

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem is that you have no understanding of

Take your patronizing bullshit and bring it somewhere else please.

Simply labelling free will as acting without force or coercion, according to ones will, fails because determined action has no choice but to proceed as determined

I didn't.

Your inability to parse this leads me to think that you are merely blind to your own ideological biases.

I have defined °°° and ••• entirely in terms of deterministic systems. Entirely.

Just because the dwarf must try the door and the dwarf must always fail does not mean the dwarf is not, of all the bits in the field, the set of bits on the field in that moment trying the door.

It does not change that of all the bits on the field the only bit that matters to success is the one on the door that says "locked".

The dwarf IS the set of bits on the field, at least here, which is in this moment trying the door.

Whether he is °°° is defined not by anything internal to the dwarf but rather whether the door opened.

We can see here that there is a •••.

We can evaluate whether that ••• is °°°.

The system is determined.

Therefore °°° ••• may exist in determined systems.

 

[The AntiChris]

A [determined] action is freely chosen if it is done so without coercion or other morally relevant influence (what Marvin calls undue influence).

Determinism means that actions are not freely chosen,

Yes I know that's what you fervently believe based on an idiosyncratic notion of what constitutes choosing (i.e. you believe choice does not exist in our universe).

Silverstein (and many others) have explained this issue, yet you focus on trivial rhetoric....which wasn't far off the mark even if I wouldn't have put it that way.

You couldn't resist could you. Why the need to disparage the character of those who disagree with you? It's petty and unnecessary.

Plus, you avoided the question.

No I didn't. I explained quite carefully the conditions under which actions can be freely chosen.

Here it is again:

Given that the given and accepted definition of determinism stipulates initial conditions and events thereafter are fixed by antecedents, no possible deviation, no possible modification, no possible alternate action: is a determined action a freely chosen action?

Yes or no?

Your question only makes sense if it is assumed that [determined] actions are either all freely chosen or all not freely chosen.

Why would you ask the question in this way when no one has claimed that all determined actions are freely chosen?

 

[IIDB Staff]

Just a friendly reminder to address the argument and not the poster!

 

[DBT]

You are making wild accusations as a means of defense

No, they aren't. They making absolutely valid observations:

You made a No-True-Scotsman, posted it in your thread as a central feature, and now you are walking back from it.

The problem is that you have no understanding of the nature of the failure of compatibilism. Simply labelling free will as acting without force or coercion, according to ones will, fails because determined action has no choice but to proceed as determined.

That is the watering down of compatibilism and its failure to establish the reality of free will.

If will played an actual role in decision making, making a difference, you might be onto something, but as it doesn't, compatibilism is a failed definition (it can't be called an argument).

So take your 'No True Scotsman' and jam it.

The problem is that you have no understanding of

Take your patronizing bullshit and bring it somewhere else please.

Simply labelling free will as acting without force or coercion, according to ones will, fails because determined action has no choice but to proceed as determined

I didn't.

Your inability to parse this leads me to think that you are merely blind to your own ideological biases.

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the compatibilist definition of free will. Your so called argument for free will is completely off the rails.

I have defined °°° and ••• entirely in terms of deterministic systems. Entirely.

What you fail to grasp are the implications and consequences of determinism, ie, that determinism by definition allows no deviation or freedom of choice, alternate actions not being possible within a determined system.

Without possible alternatives in any given instance in time, where is free will?

You have no case to argue.

 

[DBT]

A [determined] action is freely chosen if it is done so without coercion or other morally relevant influence (what Marvin calls undue influence).

Determinism means that actions are not freely chosen,

Yes I know that's what you fervently believe based on an idiosyncratic notion of what constitutes choosing (i.e. you believe choice does not exist in our universe).

It has absolutely nothing to do with my belief. Determinism, by definition, does not allow alternate actions.

Without alternate actions being possible, there is no choice. The action that is taken is the only possible action.

That is how determinism works. Actions are fixed by antecedent events, not freely chosen as if a different option was possible.

No alternate actions are possible within a determined system.....not because this is what I believe, but how determinism is defined and how it works;

''Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

Silverstein (and many others) have explained this issue, yet you focus on trivial rhetoric....which wasn't far off the mark even if I wouldn't have put it that way.

You couldn't resist could you. Why the need to disparage the character of those who disagree with you? It's petty and unnecessary.

Strange. That comment doesn't relate to what I said.

Plus, you avoided the question.

No I didn't. I explained quite carefully the conditions under which actions can be freely chosen.

You made a category error, which has been explained too many times to count

Why would you ask the question in this way when no one has claimed that all determined actions are freely chosen?

Yet you say: ''I explained quite carefully the conditions under which actions can be freely chosen.'' - which is nonsense given that we are talking about determinism

Your question only makes sense if it is assumed that [determined] actions are either all freely chosen or all not freely chosen.

Why would you think there was another possibility? You want determinism to mean both free and not free at the same time? Or perhaps some sort of escape clause?

 

[The AntiChris]

Yet you say: ''I explained quite carefully the conditions under which actions can be freely chosen.'' - which is nonsense given that we are talking about determinism

Here's the question you asked:

Given that the given and accepted definition of determinism stipulates initial conditions and events thereafter are fixed by antecedents, no possible deviation, no possible modification, no possible alternate action: is a determined action a freely chosen action?

Yes or no?

Are you saying that the question you asked was nonsense? Did you not expect me to answer?

I honestly don't know what to make of this exchange.

___________________________________________

I'm sincerely attempting to respond to what you say but it's like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

 

[DBT]

Yet you say: ''I explained quite carefully the conditions under which actions can be freely chosen.'' - which is nonsense given that we are talking about determinism

Here's the question you asked:

Given that the given and accepted definition of determinism stipulates initial conditions and events thereafter are fixed by antecedents, no possible deviation, no possible modification, no possible alternate action: is a determined action a freely chosen action?

Yes or no?

Are you saying that the question you asked was nonsense? Did you not expect me to answer?

The question is related to agency, namely, freedom of will, so of course I expected an answer.

I honestly don't know what to make of this exchange.

It's not hard. What does will do, what is its function? What difference does 'free will' make for what are fixed outcomes within a determined system?

___________________________________________

I'm sincerely attempting to respond to what you say but it's like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

You like to ask what you believe to be simple yes or no questions. So I asked you one. Why is the question so puzzling for you?

To put it simply: is an action, determined and fixed by antecedents, a freely chosen action?

Yes or no?

If yes, please explain how and why. Thank you.

 

[The AntiChris]

What difference does 'free will' make for what are fixed outcomes within a determined system?

I'm not sure what you you're getting at here, but I'll do my best to answer.

Whether or not someone acts of their own free will bears on the moral judgements we make about the behaviour of that person.

You like to ask what you believe to be simple yes or no questions. So I asked you one. Why is the question so puzzling for you?

Can we call a truce here because I think this is revealing a possible misunderstanding?

To put it simply: is an action, determined and fixed by antecedents, a freely chosen action?

Yes or no?

If yes, please explain how and why. Thank you.

The question isn't puzzling. It's just not possible to respond with a simple yes or no - there's insufficient information. I'll try to explain.

Marvin provided a definition of compatibilist free will in the first post on the Compatibilism: What's that About? thread:

Operationally, free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do while "free of coercion and undue influence".

So you can see, an action is freely chosen if it is "free of coercion and undue influence".

It follows therefore that if you ask if an action is freely chosen but don't tell me if it was "free of coercion and undue influence", then I can't answer. There's insufficient information.