A simple explanation of free will.

[Juma]

You behave as "free will" is one thing and one thing only. That is not true. "Free will" means many very different things.

No, that is not what I am saying. I don't know where you get the idea.

I have clearly stated that the term 'free will' is commonly applied to many very different things, an absence of coercion, conscious choice, etc. And that there are several definitions of free will: compatibalism, libertarianism, etc.

What I have said is; all agency related to one single source - the brain. The brain being the sole source of decision making and response.

This is not the same as saying what you erroneously claim - that "free will" is one thing and one thing only.

What? I have never said so. How could you come to that conclusion? In the very post you cite I say the opposite.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How is this to be understood?
EB

... apparent agency? derail?

To understand my posts you actually need to read and take into account the posts I'm responding to.

How is this getting at a simple explanation of free will?

Mr arkirk posted arguments, broadly purporting to deny the existence of free will. I responded by addressing the issue of the validity of his arguments.

As to free will itself, I remember suggesting a no-nonsense and straightforward definition a while back. I don't remember which thread it was but apparently you missed that boat.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If we were to choose each time whatever is best then it wouldn't be free will since there's just one possibility, i.e. whatever is best, and therefore no choice at all. That wouldn't be a proof that free will doesn't exist but we would have no example of free will in the act.
EB

I think that it is still free will to choose what we know to be best because we know that sometimes people decide to do what they know is not best (out of fear ,hate, envy etc). I guess because we are emotional beings it is our emotional drives that need to be harnessed by our wills in order to do the right thing.

Ok, I had misunderstood.
I would certainly agree that the ability (and sometime failure) to choose to do something else than what we want to do is crucial to our notion of free will, if that's really what you mean here. I guess we have to accept the folk psychology idea that we can sometimes consciously choose and act against unconscious determinations that translate as conscious fear, envie etc.
EB

 

[apeman]

Why would the universe want stuff? I think you´re attributing things to the universe that doesn´t make any sense. Only a conscious mind can have a will. Ie, not the universe.

Just because you come out of something and are still dependent on it does not imply that you are actually 100% it. Are you still your mother and father?

Whether or not I´m separate from my parents is a matter of semantics. It´s actually arbitrary. All life on Earth is very closely related genetically. It´s perfectly valid to say that all life on Earth is just one single organism. If we go with that definition then I am still my mother and father. Same goes for will. How can you possibly know whether or not your thoughts are your own?

If I thought wrongly about someone's actions and then acted on those false beliefs then my actions were not caused by the universe as it is , they were caused by my false beliefs about the universe.I am the cause of those actions , not the universe.

No. Now you´ve just added a random factor. Random is without control. Whether or not you chose to define that as free is arbitrary. But it doesn´t really prove anything.

Freedom implies the ability to act (within the confines of possibilities) based on my thoughts...so yes it implies an element of control...though not necessarily correctly targeted control.

Ok, good. So random is not free. Definitions are important for philosophic enquiry. So now we´re getting somewhere.

On one level you are saying that we are an intrinsic part of the universe, an intrinsic part that doesn't have a will of its own, then on another level you say that the universe can not have a will... you are making a clear distinction between us and the world in which we live.

There is nothing necessarily random about coming to the wrong conclusions..for example, there may be good reasons for supposing someone's intentions are what they seem rather than what they are.

 

[apeman]

"Ok, I had misunderstood.
I would certainly agree that the ability (and sometime failure) to choose to do something else than what we want to do is crucial to our notion of free will, if that's really what you mean here. I guess we have to accept the folk psychology idea that we can sometimes consciously choose and act against unconscious determinations that translate as conscious fear, envie etc."
EB




I'd suggest that what we really mean by free will is self control. Do I control myself or do I dance to the tune that the universe plays?

For instance, our natural inclinations (natures) may drive us to do something that our free will (self control) fights against.

 

[DrZoidberg]

On one level you are saying that we are an intrinsic part of the universe, an intrinsic part that doesn't have a will of its own, then on another level you say that the universe can not have a will... you are making a clear distinction between us and the world in which we live.

I´m not saying anything. I´m simply reading what you are writing critically, and then critiquing it. I haven´t offered you my views yet.

What we define as "us" is arbitrary. We can make distinctions between any two objects or concepts simply by rearranging definitions. That alone proves nothing. I don´t think it is helpful to talk about the will as a separate entity. I think it´s more helpful to think of the mind and the will as emergent properties of the brain and our biology. But we don´t have a good enough understanding of neurology to have a meaningful discussion about it. So I prefer not making a decision about the freedom of our will until that research is concluded. Based on the current science that probably won´t happen in my life time.

But on the purely philosophical aspect of free will. I think all sides are correct. I think we have free will at the same time as we don´t. I think all positions on the free will issue are talking past each other because they have defined the component parts differently. Within their own definitions they are correct.

There is nothing necessarily random about coming to the wrong conclusions..for example, there may be good reasons for supposing someone's intentions are what they seem rather than what they are.

But they are mistakes. And mistakes are by definition noise. Within statistical analysis we put that down as random. But sure, any event can be traced back to a causal agent, or a (completely random) quantum vibration. But that is splitting hairs IMHO. It doesn´t really add to the discussion. I think it´s perfectly valid to just talk about random.

 

[DBT]

No, that is not what I am saying. I don't know where you get the idea.

I have clearly stated that the term 'free will' is commonly applied to many very different things, an absence of coercion, conscious choice, etc. And that there are several definitions of free will: compatibalism, libertarianism, etc.

What I have said is; all agency related to one single source - the brain. The brain being the sole source of decision making and response.

This is not the same as saying what you erroneously claim - that "free will" is one thing and one thing only.

What? I have never said so. How could you come to that conclusion? In the very post you cite I say the opposite.

What you said was - ''You behave as "free will" is one thing and one thing only. That is not true.'' - which says that you believe that I ''behave (presumably believe) as "free will" is one thing and one thing only, and you go on to say ''that is not true''

If you meant something other than what your words and sentences say....I can't guess what that may be. I can only respond to what I see in front of me. Maybe you meant something else, but then your meaning is not clear.

 

[DBT]

"Ok, I had misunderstood.
I would certainly agree that the ability (and sometime failure) to choose to do something else than what we want to do is crucial to our notion of free will, if that's really what you mean here. I guess we have to accept the folk psychology idea that we can sometimes consciously choose and act against unconscious determinations that translate as conscious fear, envie etc."

Doesn't work, there is no presence of a conscious, independent self (homunculus) that is able to consciously override underlying processing activity.

Conscious experience is the work of neural activity. Each and every choice being an expression (readiness potential) of the decision that is made in that instance. A change of mind can only come an instant later in time (microseconds)...if new information come to the fore. If not, we are stuck with the decision that was made.

 

[Juma]

What? I have never said so. How could you come to that conclusion? In the very post you cite I say the opposite.

What you said was - ''You behave as "free will" is one thing and one thing only. That is not true.'' - which says that you believe that I ''behave (presumably believe) as "free will" is one thing and one thing only, and you go on to say ''that is not true''

If you meant something other than what your words and sentences say....I can't guess what that may be. I can only respond to what I see in front of me. Maybe you meant something else, but then your meaning is not clear.

Let clear things up then: is free will possible?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'd suggest that what we really mean by free will is self control. Do I control myself or do I dance to the tune that the universe plays?

For instance, our natural inclinations (natures) may drive us to do something that our free will (self control) fights against.

Well, in the context of human behaviour self-control has come to mean something very similar to our notion of free will so here we want to steer away from that particular sense to avoide circularity.

So is the original, cybernetic, kind of self-control enough? A computer can be said to have self-control in that sense, albeit perhaps in a more limited sense than we do. So, what's the difference? Is it just the complexity of the human brain? Its unpredictability?

Also, ultimately, like computers, human beings are presumably the product of external processes (they are not self-made) so you probably also want to specify adequately the kind of self-control you have in mind.
EB

 

[DBT]

What you said was - ''You behave as "free will" is one thing and one thing only. That is not true.'' - which says that you believe that I ''behave (presumably believe) as "free will" is one thing and one thing only, and you go on to say ''that is not true''

If you meant something other than what your words and sentences say....I can't guess what that may be. I can only respond to what I see in front of me. Maybe you meant something else, but then your meaning is not clear.

Let clear things up then: is free will possible?

What exactly is possible? Shouldn't a clear and concise definition come firs? We have several definitions of free will, compatibalism, libertarianism, etc, and multiple common references.. conscious agency, absence of coercion and so on, but definitions without evidence and semantics alone do not prove a proposition that is presumably related to some actual attribute or feature of human makeup, if not other animal species.

 

[OLDMAN]

There is nothing that you can imagine that cannot be expressed physically. Everything is within the bounds of actual reality. That is where it came from in the first place. Scrambled eggs are not free will.

How are these 'expressed physically'?

1) Yesterday, upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't there....
2) The 'Force' from Star Wars
3) The character I'm creating for a story

You just expressed them physically on a screen. Thankyou.

 

[OLDMAN]

What does that mean? It is that if I imagine a Ferrari then a Ferrari can be built? Surely not. So what did you mean?

Everything is within the bounds of actual reality.

That's sooo trivially true. Although you might have wanted to say, "Everything that exists is within the bounds of actual reality". I guess that was it.

That is where it came from in the first place. Scrambled eggs are not free will.

Definitely true as well.

Yet I may be free to choose between scrambled eggs, soft or hard boiled eggs, fried eggs, poached and even chocolate eggs and Easter eggs.
EB

You don't choose, the choice is made for you. Via past experiences and perceptions, prejudices, ect....

 

[OLDMAN]

We are not people using our brains to figure things out...we are brains with personas, brains use personalities to figure things out. Most things are pretty irrelevant to brains. But there is a trade off, an exhausting trade off. Goodnight.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You don't choose, the choice is made for you. Via past experiences and perceptions, prejudices, ect....

Thank you for explaining.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

We are not people using our brains to figure things out...we are brains with personas, brains use personalities to figure things out. Most things are pretty irrelevant to brains. But there is a trade off, an exhausting trade off. Goodnight.

Goodnight, brain.
EB

 

[Togo]

How are these 'expressed physically'?

1) Yesterday, upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't there....
2) The 'Force' from Star Wars
3) The character I'm creating for a story

You just expressed them physically on a screen. Thankyou.

Cool. Tell me about the character I'm creating for a story. I've expressed it physically to you, so you should be able to describe it, right? Or is it really a referent to something that isn't expressed physically at all?

Or if you prefer, the next two lines to the poem in point 1). The poem I'm expressing physically.

Most philosophers tend to struggle with the idea that written words are identical with the concept being expressed, for fairly obvious and practical reasons.

 

[fromderinside]

... apparent agency? derail?

To understand my posts you actually need to read and take into account the posts I'm responding to.

I agree that's exactly what you should do.

My question addressed your answer to arkick

Ok, you seem to say that free will doesn't exist at all. Yet we do have the idea of free will. So, we invented the idea of something that doesn't exist, i.e. free will. Yet, you also say we cannot trully invent anything

How is this getting at a simple explanation of free will?

Mr arkirk posted arguments, broadly purporting to deny the existence of free will. I responded by addressing the issue of the validity of his arguments.

As to free will itself, I remember suggesting a no-nonsense and straightforward definition a while back. I don't remember which thread it was but apparently you missed that boat.
EB

Yes, yes, yes. So did your straightforward definition come down to a conscious sense of agency? Even if it didn't shouldn't your 'straightforward' definition have been your first input to this thread. I don't understand why one would have to go to another thread to get at what had been requested for this thread, unless of course, you are just playing games.

Obviously arkick takes the position that there is no straightforward explanation for something that he insists doesn't exist. Are you trying to tell us that a (simple) straightforward explanation requires one to dispose of the position there is no free will.

OK so I'm just as tedious as are you. Appropriate.

 

[apeman]

I´m not saying anything. I´m simply reading what you are writing critically, and then critiquing it. I haven´t offered you my views yet.

What we define as "us" is arbitrary. We can make distinctions between any two objects or concepts simply by rearranging definitions. That alone proves nothing. I don´t think it is helpful to talk about the will as a separate entity. I think it´s more helpful to think of the mind and the will as emergent properties of the brain and our biology. But we don´t have a good enough understanding of neurology to have a meaningful discussion about it. So I prefer not making a decision about the freedom of our will until that research is concluded. Based on the current science that probably won´t happen in my life time.

But on the purely philosophical aspect of free will. I think all sides are correct. I think we have free will at the same time as we don´t. I think all positions on the free will issue are talking past each other because they have defined the component parts differently. Within their own definitions they are correct.

There is nothing necessarily random about coming to the wrong conclusions..for example, there may be good reasons for supposing someone's intentions are what they seem rather than what they are.

But they are mistakes. And mistakes are by definition noise. Within statistical analysis we put that down as random. But sure, any event can be traced back to a causal agent, or a (completely random) quantum vibration. But that is splitting hairs IMHO. It doesn´t really add to the discussion. I think it´s perfectly valid to just talk about random.

I think that it is far easier to come to the conclusion that free will exists if you are an idealist rather than a materialist. As an idealist I don't see myself as a product of a mindless (material) world, rather I see the world as a dream like experience .As it happens I see myself as that which is experiencing this particular life, a life without mindless material (there is only information)...it's a very simple explanation, unlike materialism which believes my ancestor was mindless material that mindlessly produced me.Materialism bind you to the silly concept that you do not exist as any kind of independent being...materialism goes against our most basic knowledge, the knowledge that we experience something from the perspective of the individual.

I believe that even materialists should concede that physical material and thoughts are different things (even though one may cause the other), and that our imaginations have a degree of freedom from the world as it is.It follows that if our imagination drives a part of our will then that will has a degree of freedom from the world as it is...it is a free will (to a degree).

If (in your theory) mistaken thoughts are a part of nature, surely that would demonstrate that such thoughts are not natural since nature does not make any other form of mistake?

 

[apeman]

I'd suggest that what we really mean by free will is self control. Do I control myself or do I dance to the tune that the universe plays?

For instance, our natural inclinations (natures) may drive us to do something that our free will (self control) fights against.

Well, in the context of human behaviour self-control has come to mean something very similar to our notion of free will so here we want to steer away from that particular sense to avoide circularity.

So is the original, cybernetic, kind of self-control enough? A computer can be said to have self-control in that sense, albeit perhaps in a more limited sense than we do. So, what's the difference? Is it just the complexity of the human brain? Its unpredictability?

Also, ultimately, like computers, human beings are presumably the product of external processes (they are not self-made) so you probably also want to specify adequately the kind of self-control you have in mind.
EB

I think the best example of self control is when you force yourself to do something against your nature ,I don't see computers as an example of self control...there is no self, and they (computers) have no concept of morality (which is the greatest driver to self control imo).