A simple explanation of free will.

[Juma]

It is not wrong, it just means slmething else than you mean when you talk abiut "free will".

You should talk a look at Lweis Carrols "Humpty Dumpty"

Not sure about what you are trying to say.

I can define "free will" to denote actions done when the agent has more than one option and the idea of selecting the chosen option orginates in the agent itself (deterministically or not) and not because another agent forces it to.

 

[DBT]

Not sure about what you are trying to say.

I can define "free will" to denote actions done when the agent has more than one option and the idea of selecting the chosen option orginates in the agent itself (deterministically or not) and not because another agent forces it to.

You can, but then even a gnat has 'free will' - able to choose to land or take off, fly left or fly right or fly up or down, even though it has virtually no epistemology, and has no potential to be a moral agent, or to reflect on the meaning and significance of its decisions and actions, therefore it is a meaningless definition. The agency, of course, being brain condition and state in every instance of a decision being made. It always comes back to brain condition and state.

 

[Juma]

I can define "free will" to denote actions done when the agent has more than one option and the idea of selecting the chosen option orginates in the agent itself (deterministically or not) and not because another agent forces it to.

You can, but then even a gnat has 'free will' - able to choose to land or take off, fly left or fly right or fly up or down, even though it has virtually no epistemology, and has no potential to be a moral agent, or to reflect on the meaning and significance of its decisions and actions, therefore it is a meaningless definition. .

Then add that the agent must have "potential to be a moral agent, and to reflect on the meaning and significance of its decisions and actions" to the definition and we are home!

 

[apeman]

People may argue that we can not choose what we desire (our objectives), but this is a false understanding of the situation since it is clear that we all want what we think is best (for any given situation).

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.

 

[apeman]

Always good to start with definitions. So far I´m with you.

In this case I think we mean that our will can be our own,

Circular. It´s like saying that our will is our will. Ok. So what?

that it has a degree of freedom from the outside world.

All you need to do to establish this is to set up a causal link, remove any intermediary steps and you have proven freedom without proving anything.

In other words we are not automatons being driven by outside forces alone.

I´m not sure how this follows.

Proof that our minds are not completely bound/caused by the outside world is that we are able to imagine that which does not actually exist. Our minds are not simply mirrors of the reality around us, our minds have a degree of autonomy (to think ahead for example).

I´m going with non sequitur. Doesn´t prove what you think it proves. It just proves that our minds are capable of symbolic thought, and that we can map wholly abstract entities onto realities or see patterns that may not really exist. This isn´t proof of any freedom. It´s not proof we don´t have freedom. It´s just an interesting quirk of the human mind that has no bearing on this subject.

We are clearly not free to do whatever we will, we are however free to attempt to pursue those objectives that are available to us.

I´m going with go with nonsense. I don´t know what if anything this line means.

We can use our imaginations to discover new truths on our path of knowledge in the pursuit of our objectives.

Our capacity for imagination still doesn´t prove any of the brain is free from anything. It´s like saying that the redness of a car proves it has free will.

People may argue that we can not choose what we desire (our objectives), but this is a false understanding of the situation since it is clear that we all want what we think is best (for any given situation). It should also be clear to the wise mind that one should never just assume that one is right about what objectives one should have, one should accept that increased knowledge (born of imagination of ourselves and others) frees us from those prejudices that hold us back or mislead us.

How does any of this connect to anything else you said?

I hope that's a fairly clear explanation.

Hmm...

Our will starts with us and ends with us ...either you believe that or you believe the universe is acting through you. Do you believe that the universe is deceiving me into believing that I exist as a free being (free within the confines of possibilities open to me)? I think it is clear that there is a degree of separation between the universe and my imaginings don't you? If there is a degree of separation then there is a degree of freedom from...obviously.

If I think of something that doesn't exist outside of my imaginings then I am the cause of that thought, that thought is free (to a degree) from reality...if I act on that thought then I am the cause of that act. That act is a reflection of free will.

 

[fromderinside]

You can, but then even a gnat has 'free will' - able to choose to land or take off, fly left or fly right or fly up or down, even though it has virtually no epistemology, and has no potential to be a moral agent, or to reflect on the meaning and significance of its decisions and actions, therefore it is a meaningless definition. .

Then add that the agent must have "potential to be a moral agent, and to reflect on the meaning and significance of its decisions and actions" to the definition and we are home!

Except being a moral agent is a self defined and supported state of agency not supported by anything we can really measure.


As for DBT agency is only relevant if one presumes the agent is aware that it is making decisions and not just that it is making choices from several available for nothing other than one being stronger than the others. If that is so there is nothing to distinguish agency from natural forces.

Bottom line agency must incorporate awareness of actions and consequences arising from those consequences to be separable from natural forces. That being the case opting for some construct within which to frame choices is only one of many available to the (aware) agent with the moral construct actually being nothing more than a deceitful conceit.

 

[Unbeatable]

Our will starts with us and ends with us ...

How do you know that? What is "us"? Where is the boundary between "us" and "the outside world"?

 

[DBT]

You can, but then even a gnat has 'free will' - able to choose to land or take off, fly left or fly right or fly up or down, even though it has virtually no epistemology, and has no potential to be a moral agent, or to reflect on the meaning and significance of its decisions and actions, therefore it is a meaningless definition. .

Then add that the agent must have "potential to be a moral agent, and to reflect on the meaning and significance of its decisions and actions" to the definition and we are home!

Still comes down to brain condition and state, lacking the necessary wiring to process, empathize, or grasp the consequences, the decisions that lie in the realm of 'moral' agency become impossible to achieve.

It's still an issue of brain state and condition rather than 'will' - which is necessarily a manifestation of brain condition and state and therefore is not an instance of 'free will'

On the neurology of morals
''Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.''

1) A person may be self conscious and intelligent and have both the perception and the experience of making conscious choices, decisions that are based on his or her beliefs and desires.
2) A person may believe that he can consciously control his own behaviour.
3) The person is in fact not in control of his or her problematic behaviour.
4) The person's outward behaviour is a reflection of the neural structures that are functional and those that are damaged.
5) It is the condition of the neural structures of the brain that determines human decision making and conscious behaviour.
6)The person's perception and experience of conscious self control - free will - is an illusion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Our will starts with us and ends with us ...either you believe that or you believe the universe is acting through you.

This doesn´t mean anything, does it? It looks to me like something that is intended to sound profound but is in fact an completely empty phrase devoid of any meaning.

Do you believe that the universe is deceiving me into believing that I exist as a free being (free within the confines of possibilities open to me)? I think it is clear that there is a degree of separation between the universe and my imaginings don't you? If there is a degree of separation then there is a degree of freedom from...obviously.

?!? We´re all part of the universe, Including our wills and even our imaginary unicorns. Obviously anything within the universe is part of it. It´s so obvious that I find it incredible that you don´t share this belief. So I literally don´t know what you mean.

If I think of something that doesn't exist outside of my imaginings then I am the cause of that thought, that thought is free (to a degree) from reality...if I act on that thought then I am the cause of that act. That act is a reflection of free will.

But doesn´t freedom imply some sort of control? Random is not free. How can you tell the difference between thoughts that occur randomly and novel thoughts you have purposely designed? I actually can´t even imagine how such a thought could theoretically form. I´m not saying it can´t happen. I think I just don´t understand what you mean.

 

[Juma]

Then add that the agent must have "potential to be a moral agent, and to reflect on the meaning and significance of its decisions and actions" to the definition and we are home!

Still comes down to brain condition and state, lacking the necessary wiring to process, empathize, or grasp the consequences, the decisions that lie in the realm of 'moral' agency become impossible to achieve.

It's still an issue of brain state and condition rather than 'will' - which is necessarily a manifestation of brain condition and state and therefore is not an instance of 'free will'

On the neurology of morals
''Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.''

1) A person may be self conscious and intelligent and have both the perception and the experience of making conscious choices, decisions that are based on his or her beliefs and desires.
2) A person may believe that he can consciously control his own behaviour.
3) The person is in fact not in control of his or her problematic behaviour.
4) The person's outward behaviour is a reflection of the neural structures that are functional and those that are damaged.
5) It is the condition of the neural structures of the brain that determines human decision making and conscious behaviour.
6)The person's perception and experience of conscious self control - free will - is an illusion.

What the fuck are you talking about? You aware of that not all usage of the two word phrase "free will" are used to describe a physical reality?

 

[DBT]

Still comes down to brain condition and state, lacking the necessary wiring to process, empathize, or grasp the consequences, the decisions that lie in the realm of 'moral' agency become impossible to achieve.

It's still an issue of brain state and condition rather than 'will' - which is necessarily a manifestation of brain condition and state and therefore is not an instance of 'free will'

On the neurology of morals
''Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.''

1) A person may be self conscious and intelligent and have both the perception and the experience of making conscious choices, decisions that are based on his or her beliefs and desires.
2) A person may believe that he can consciously control his own behaviour.
3) The person is in fact not in control of his or her problematic behaviour.
4) The person's outward behaviour is a reflection of the neural structures that are functional and those that are damaged.
5) It is the condition of the neural structures of the brain that determines human decision making and conscious behaviour.
6)The person's perception and experience of conscious self control - free will - is an illusion.

What the fuck are you talking about? You aware of that not all usage of the two word phrase "free will" are used to describe a physical reality?

What 'physical reality' is that? What 'the fuck' (if you want to put it that way) are you talking about?

 

[Juma]

What the fuck are you talking about? You aware of that not all usage of the two word phrase "free will" are used to describe a physical reality?

What 'physical reality' is that?

I dont know, that is up to those who use it that way (for example libertarian free willers).

 

[DBT]

What 'physical reality' is that?

I dont know, that is up to those who use it that way (for example libertarian free willers).

What now...we wait for a Libertarian to come along and set us straight?

 

[Juma]

I dont know, that is up to those who use it that way (for example libertarian free willers).

What now...we wait for a Libertarian to come along and set us straight?

You are so fucking backwards!

Words are one thing. Reality is another.

Libertarians use the words "free will" in one way. Most of us in another way.
Libertarians uses it as if it describes the inner reality of the mind works.
Most of us others just uses it to describe how we ascribe responsibility.

 

[apeman]

Our will starts with us and ends with us ...

How do you know that? What is "us"? Where is the boundary between "us" and "the outside world"?

We travel in vehicles that we have a degree of control over, these bodies represent one boundary between us and the world around us. The other , more important, boundary is between our minds and the stuff around us that is not mindful.

 

[apeman]

This doesn´t mean anything, does it? It looks to me like something that is intended to sound profound but is in fact an completely empty phrase devoid of any meaning.

Do you believe that the universe is deceiving me into believing that I exist as a free being (free within the confines of possibilities open to me)? I think it is clear that there is a degree of separation between the universe and my imaginings don't you? If there is a degree of separation then there is a degree of freedom from...obviously.

?!? We´re all part of the universe, Including our wills and even our imaginary unicorns. Obviously anything within the universe is part of it. It´s so obvious that I find it incredible that you don´t share this belief. So I literally don´t know what you mean.

If I think of something that doesn't exist outside of my imaginings then I am the cause of that thought, that thought is free (to a degree) from reality...if I act on that thought then I am the cause of that act. That act is a reflection of free will.

But doesn´t freedom imply some sort of control? Random is not free. How can you tell the difference between thoughts that occur randomly and novel thoughts you have purposely designed? I actually can´t even imagine how such a thought could theoretically form. I´m not saying it can´t happen. I think I just don´t understand what you mean.

If your will is not your will (ie, free from control of the outside world) then it is the will of the universe...what is the other alternative?

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?

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.

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.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If your will is not your will (ie, free from control of the outside world) then it is the will of the universe...what is the other alternative?

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.

 

[DBT]

What now...we wait for a Libertarian to come along and set us straight?

You are so fucking backwards!

Words are one thing. Reality is another.

Libertarians use the words "free will" in one way. Most of us in another way.
Libertarians uses it as if it describes the inner reality of the mind works.
Most of us others just uses it to describe how we ascribe responsibility.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion on the basis of I said, or have ever said, suggested or even hinted at....but that 'Words are [indeed] one thing and reality is another'

Something is seriously askew here. I say one thing and it comes back to me as if I had said the very opposite to what I in fact said.

 

[Juma]

You are so fucking backwards!

Words are one thing. Reality is another.

Libertarians use the words "free will" in one way. Most of us in another way.
Libertarians uses it as if it describes the inner reality of the mind works.
Most of us others just uses it to describe how we ascribe responsibility.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion on the basis of I said, or have ever said, suggested or even hinted at....but that 'Words are [indeed] one thing and reality is another'

Something is seriously askew here. I say one thing and it comes back to me as if I had said the very opposite to what I in fact said.

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

 

[DBT]

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion on the basis of I said, or have ever said, suggested or even hinted at....but that 'Words are [indeed] one thing and reality is another'

Something is seriously askew here. I say one thing and it comes back to me as if I had said the very opposite to what I in fact said.

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 forms of agency is 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.