Free will is when our choosing is free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.
It is an assertion backed up by the three dictionaries I quoted. But don't worry, your definition is found there too, in second place.
The label is applied as defined. If we see what is commonly understood to be a cat, then we call it a "cat". If we see a dog we call it a "dog".
And when we see someone deciding for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and undue influence, we call it "free will". It is all very straightforward.
Machines that can make rational decisions based on sets of criteria. The criteria determining the action taken.... in principle just as a human brain does, without coercion or force, able to beat master chess players of its own accord, its makeup and function as an information processor....which is the evolved function of a brain.
The machine plays chess because that's what we programmed it to do. The microwave oven cooks our food because that's what we built it to do. In all cases the machine is functioning to satisfy our will, because it has no will of its own.
When a machine starts acting as if it had a will of its own, we usually call someone to repair it.
Neither operate on the principle of free will.
Free will is not an operating principle. Free will simply describes the conditions of the choosing operation: Was coerced or free of coercion? Was it unduly influenced or free of undue influence? This is really simple stuff and easy to understand.
Except that it's not our will that necessitates actions. That is achieved by information input interacting with the state of the system, neural architecture and memory function. Evidence from neuroscience, etc, etc.....
If I decide that I will eat an apple right now, then I will get an apple and eat it. The intention to eat the apple motivates and directs my actions until the apple is eaten. There is nothing in neuroscience that contradicts this.
Your conglomeration of neuroscience expressions do nothing to contradict this. The "information input" to "the state of my system" is that I feel a need to eat something. That triggers the recall by my "memory function" that I have apples that I can eat and that they are very satisfying. The intention to eat an apple then motivates and directs my subsequent actions as I go to the kitchen, pick out an apple, rinse it and dry it, and then begin eating it. All of these coordinated actions are carried out by my own "neural architecture".
My original expression is totally consistent with the neuroscience. Neuroscience provides a ton of additional details, as to how different parts of the brain contribute to the general function of realizing I am hungry and getting an apple to satisfy that need. But neuroscience does not change the facts as stated by my description. It simply provides additional details.
''Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes, and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.''
Huettel et al. point out that their study identifies the role various regions of prefrontal cortex play in moment-to-moment processing of mental events in order to make predictions about future events. Thus implicit predictive models are formed which need to be continuously updated, the disruption of sequence would indicate that the PFC is engaged in a novelty response to pattern changes. As a third possible explanation, Ivry and Knight propose that activation of the prefrontal cortex may reflect the generation of hypotheses, since the formulation of an hypothesis is an essential feature of higher-level cognition.''
Exactly. My prior experience with eating apples enabled me to predict that an apple would satisfy my current hunger. So, I set my intent upon eating an apple. That intent motivated and directed my steps to the kitchen to get an apple and then eat it.
Now, if I found that I had no apples in the kitchen, then my PFC would have to deal with the novel situation, and perhaps my PFC would find something else to snack on, or perhaps my PFC would decide to go to the grocery store to buy more apples. The PFC would have to decide what to do.
There's an article on the
Prefrontal Cortex in Wikipedia which summarizes its function like this: "The basic activity of this brain region is considered to be orchestration of
thoughts and
actions in accordance with i
nternal goals." The
internal goal in this case would be to satisfy my current hunger. The
thoughts would be of the apple and its satisfying properties. The
actions would be me walking to the kitchen to get an apple to eat.
The facts of neuroscience have not changed anything. They simply provide a more detailed explanation of how things work, such as the specific brain areas involved in different parts of the operations that result in thoughts and actions and our awareness of internal goals.
By the way, your link to the Springer article is not working. You might want to fix that to avoid frustrating your readers. You may be able to find that article using a google search and then update your link to the working source.
Causal necessity cannot eliminate anything and still remain causal necessity. Remove one of those dominoes from the chain, and the "unfolding of events" simply ceases. Therefore, rule number one is: do not pretend that some events are not happening. All of the events are actually going to happen.
Alternate possibilities are not a feature, attribute or aspect of determinism. There are no possible alternate actions within a deterministic system. There is no place in the given definition of determinism that allows alternate actions. Everything must necessary proceed as determined, no deviations.
So, determinism must remain silent as to alternate possibilities. Determinism may only speak to things that will certainly happen. It may not speak of things that can happen or that could have happened. As soon as determinism opens its mouth about things that do not concern it, it ceases to be determinism, and becomes something else.
Determinism is not allowed to assert that we could not do otherwise, but only that we would not do otherwise. Determinism is ignorant as to what can and cannot happen. These topics exist within the context of possibility, not within the context of necessity. When determinism attempts to speak of possibilities, it makes a silly ass of itself.
Possibilities exist solely within the imagination. They do not exist as actualities in the real world.
The only way that possibilities exist in the real world is as actual mental events produced reliably by physical processes within the brain. And this is where determinism returns to our picture. Each possibility, as a real mental event, will occur by causal necessity, just like every other event.
Thus, determinism does not exclude these physical events, but rather asserts that they will necessarily happen. We will experience them as a series of thoughts and feelings according to the logic of our language that has evolved over millions of years. And thus, they are totally unavoidable. Possibilities will show up within the logical mechanism that reasons and decides.
What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''
Exactly. And each possibility that we consider will appear in our mind exactly as it does, with no randomness or variation, without deviation.
I'm hoping you'll eventually catch on to what I'm saying here.
Necessity is the idea that everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is necessary, and cannot be otherwise. Necessity is often opposed to chance and contingency. In a necessary world there is no chance. Everything that happens is necessitated.''
The first flaw in that statement is the unauthorized use of "cannot" instead of "will not". The use of "cannot" immediately changes the context from necessity to possibility, creating a paradox.
The second flaw is to exclude chance and contingency, which are thoughts that must necessarily occur as part of the causal mechanism as described above. We have evolved these notions to deal rationally with our uncertainties as to what will happen. So, we must logically have notions of what "can" happen and what might happen, just in case our circumstances are not what we think they are.
A lot of things are on the menu, yet according to the definition of determinism, only one option is realizable in any given instance in time; the determined option.
Sorry, but determinism has no clue as to what is possible, or realizable, or any other -ible or -able. Determinism has no knowledge of what can and cannot happen. It only knows about what certainly will happen.
I understand the meaning of possibility ...
Okay. Please demonstrate that understanding by explaining the meaning of possibility.
