Free Will And Free Choice

[untermensche]

What's free? I want in on this.

Your mind that freely decides what it will believe and what it won't believe.

Are your beliefs forced upon you like a young child being indoctrinated to believe some religion?

If you decide that democracy is better than dictatorship then that is a free decision based on ideas.

Since only the mind understands ideas a decision based on ideas must be free.

The brain can't force you to believe some idea when it has no ability to know what an idea is.

The brain creates a mind so the mind can make decisions based on things the brain has no ability to understand.

Freedom can only mean one thing for minds. The freedom to make decisions and the freedom to act on them.

 

[DBT]

What's free? I want in on this.

Still waiting for someone to actually explain.

This looks like an unequivocal admission that you really don't understand compatibilist free will.

Not at all.

My comments relate to your position, when you state ''you don't understand compatibilism'' - which implies that you, yourself do understand compatibilism.

Yet whenever asked to explain compatibilism, decline to explain what you imply you know. So, perhaps you don't understand compatibilism.

If you did understand, you'd know that as an argument it fails on all levels, so you would not be making the remarks that you happen to make.

 

[WAB]

This bit might clarify what (I think...) The AntiChris is talking about:

In response to these arguments [ incompatibilist arguments], compatibilists have denied that freedom requires the ability to do otherwise;... (empasis mine, and in [ ] mine.)

From here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#DeteAltePoss

The bit I yanked is from 1.3, but one should read all that precedes it. It's not a lot of text.

 

[The AntiChris]

This looks like an unequivocal admission that you really don't understand compatibilist free will.

Not at all.

My comments relate to your position, when you state ''you don't understand compatibilism''

Here's what I actually said:

If you believe compatibilist free will entails the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances then you fundamentally misunderstand compatibilism.

Yet whenever asked to explain compatibilism, (you) decline

Why on earth would you need me to explain compatibilism to you. This is just a diversion.

It's not The AntiChris's version of compatibilism we're discussing here, it's the standard classical compatibilism as commonly described in the philosophical literature.

 

[fromderinside]

Picking and choosing when and what determines whither future choice is free is not an option when time t=0 sets the stage as the future.

The meaning of t=0 in determinist definition is clear.

There is no allowance for error in the prediction of y for a given x.

It is only when one is on the inside looking out that the possibility of error or variance exists.

That is a relativistic illusion. No being in existence can Know that the system in which one resides is determined. So humans have no choice but to presume choice exists.

If one takes the 'error' out of a law the law holds.

Theories allowing for such are guesses against which the explanative optimum value of data demonstrates as being lawful cannot stand.

My simple view.

I choose to not argue the case for relativism when I consider determinism.

 

[WAB]

Here's what I actually said:

If you believe compatibilist free will entails the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances then you fundamentally misunderstand compatibilism.

Yet whenever asked to explain compatibilism, (you) decline

Why on earth would you need me to explain compatibilism to you. This is just a diversion.

It's not The AntiChris's version of compatibilism we're discussing here, it's the standard classical compatibilism as commonly described in the philosophical literature.

Scientists and/or science-nerds, oftentimes don't really understand certain things in philosophy or about philosophers. Some of them want to dismiss philosophy as unnecessary, but can't exactly explain how science factors into ethics; some of them just don't like philosophy or philosophers, and imagine that it's all about navel-gazing, speculation, confabulation, etc, and equate it with theology. Metaphysics is not needed because: physics, etc.

 

[fromderinside]

Clearly progress in the age of Physics demonstrates philosophy is not needed. Even Psychology demonstrates philosophy is not needed.

It's like insisting on Latin when Chinese, French, Spanish, Arabic, and English all do the job better just because it was there bigger and better than Greek in the ancient past.

Sentiment is not a reason for sustaining a failed outmoded methodology.

 

[untermensche]

Clearly progress in the age of Physics demonstrates philosophy is not needed. Even Psychology demonstrates philosophy is not needed.

It's like insisting on Latin when Chinese, French, Spanish, Arabic, and English all do the job better just because it was there bigger and better than Greek in the ancient past.

Sentiment is not a reason for sustaining a failed outmoded methodology.

Rational thinking is needed.

That is philosophy.

It takes a rational mind to understand that the isomerization of retinal is not energy transmitting information about itself to the nervous system.

 

[WAB]

Clearly progress in the age of Physics demonstrates philosophy is not needed. Even Psychology demonstrates philosophy is not needed.

It's like insisting on Latin when Chinese, French, Spanish, Arabic, and English all do the job better just because it was there bigger and better than Greek in the ancient past.

Sentiment is not a reason for sustaining a failed outmoded methodology.

^ See what I mean, AntiChris?

 

[DBT]

Here's what I actually said:

If you believe compatibilist free will entails the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances then you fundamentally misunderstand compatibilism.

Yet whenever asked to explain compatibilism, (you) decline

Why on earth would you need me to explain compatibilism to you. This is just a diversion.

It's not The AntiChris's version of compatibilism we're discussing here, it's the standard classical compatibilism as commonly described in the philosophical literature.

Once again: you make the claim ''you don't understand compatibilism'' - which implies that you do understand compatibilism - but whenever asked you decline to explain.

When someone makes the claim 'you don't understand' it is natural to ask 'what do you mean' or 'please explain' in the anticipation that an explanation will be given. Yet with you, no explanation is ever given.

You make a claim but decline to explain your claim or support it by describing the problem as you see it.

For instance, you could say: ''you don't understand compatibilism for these reasons, compatibilism entails the ability to act without coercion, that freedom is nothing more than an agent’s ability to do what they wish in the absence of impediments that would otherwise stand in her way...etc, etc.''

But you don't.

 

[DBT]

Here's what I actually said:







Why on earth would you need me to explain compatibilism to you. This is just a diversion.

It's not The AntiChris's version of compatibilism we're discussing here, it's the standard classical compatibilism as commonly described in the philosophical literature.

Scientists and/or science-nerds, oftentimes don't really understand certain things in philosophy or about philosophers. Some of them want to dismiss philosophy as unnecessary, but can't exactly explain how science factors into ethics; some of them just don't like philosophy or philosophers, and imagine that it's all about navel-gazing, speculation, confabulation, etc, and equate it with theology. Metaphysics is not needed because: physics, etc.

Philosophy without science or reference to the world as it actually works is an empty thing.....the stuff of ''how many angels can dance on the point of a needle.''

 

[The AntiChris]

Once again: you make the claim ''you don't understand compatibilism'' - which implies that you do understand compatibilism - but whenever asked you decline to explain.

When someone makes the claim 'you don't understand' it is natural to ask 'what do you mean' or 'please explain' in the anticipation that an explanation will be given. Yet with you, no explanation is ever given.

You make a claim but decline to explain your claim or support it by describing the problem as you see it.

I can't believe I have to spell this out for you.

Once again here's what I said:

If you believe compatibilist free will entails the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances then you fundamentally misunderstand compatibilism.

Classical compatibilism does not entail the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances (i.e. it does not entail indeterministic events). You can verify this by reading the available literature (a good place to start would be the section on Classical Compatibilism in the SEP).


It follows from this that if you do believe compatibilism (in all its forms) does entail the ability yo have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances then you misunderstand compatibilism.

 

[DBT]

Once again: you make the claim ''you don't understand compatibilism'' - which implies that you do understand compatibilism - but whenever asked you decline to explain.

When someone makes the claim 'you don't understand' it is natural to ask 'what do you mean' or 'please explain' in the anticipation that an explanation will be given. Yet with you, no explanation is ever given.

You make a claim but decline to explain your claim or support it by describing the problem as you see it.

I can't believe I have to spell this out for you.

Once again here's what I said:

If you believe compatibilist free will entails the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances then you fundamentally misunderstand compatibilism.

Classical compatibilism does not entail the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances (i.e. it does not entail indeterministic events). You can verify this by reading the available literature (a good place to start would be the section on Classical Compatibilism in the SEP).


It follows from this that if you do believe compatibilism (in all its forms) does entail the ability yo have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances then you misunderstand compatibilism.

Once again, I have given rebuttals that encompass all possible definitions of free will, not just compatibilism. Which I also dealt with.

In other words, there is no definition of free will that is not seriously flawed, not compatibilism, not the 'ability to have chosen otherwise,' not 'that's how words are used/semantics,' not the ability to 'select from a set of realizable options,' not 'to act without external constraints' etc. etc.

So if there is a definition of free will that has merit when all things are considered, most importantly: the neuronal process of decision making, please present your argument.

If you have something new, please present your argument.

 

[DBT]

The guy understands next to nothing.

That's your reputation. Ask anyone who has dealt with you.

He just makes irrational claims like: Because the mind arises from brain activity it can't possibly have a feedback influence on the brain.

Where did I say that there are no feedback mechanisms or loops? This is typical of your ignorance, misrepresentation and rudeness.

 

[The AntiChris]

Once again, I have given rebuttals that encompass all possible definitions of free will...

Ok, you're making it abundantly clear that you've no intention of responding directly to the points I'm making.

This is a waste of time.

 

[fromderinside]

It takes a rational mind to understand that the isomerization of retinal is not energy transmitting information about itself to the nervous system.

Of course the 'visual purple' is signaling it's presence in a particular cell in the retina of the eye. Obviously the system in which the cell is located knows the orientation and sensitivity of the cell either through integrated processing, physical location, or both. The signal is only important in that it reflects what the cell represents. If it weren't the right opsin the meaning of the action potential signal would be lost to the system.

Your argument about isomerization is moot. Only that particular opsin would be present in the cell. That is only important to reflect the purpose of the cell at that specific location. Receptor cells are not blank slates. They are there for one purpose only. They are there to to report detection and location of light frequencies to which it is sensitive in a particular location in the visual field.

Similar truths explain how frequency and odor are encoded to the brain. It's in the receptor and receptor organ design. Your rational BS notwithstanding the material evidence reflects design driven by particular material attributes.

The only amazing thing about all this chatter is that it took me so long to elucidate the appropriate scientific argument. Old age I guess.

 

[DBT]

Once again, I have given rebuttals that encompass all possible definitions of free will...

Ok, you're making it abundantly clear that you've no intention of responding directly to the points I'm making.

This is a waste of time.

I could say the same about you, only I'd be right. You don't respond to questions. You just repeat the same objections regardless of what I say, cite or quote.

To me it appears like you don't read what is being said, cited or quoted, denying that anything has been explained.

The issues with the given definitions of free will have been addressed: semantics, freedom of action, selection, common usage, terms and references....

If you can't see this by now, nothing more can be done.

However, I'll give it one more try. Jus tell me what you believe free will to be and I'll address your definition.

Are you able to do that?

 

[untermensche]

The guy understands next to nothing.

That's your reputation. Ask anyone who has dealt with you.

My reputation?

You mean something 2 other clowns besides you thinks? I laugh.

I am here making argument after argument.

You refuse to answer questions and make absurd claims about the mind in the complete absence of any objective understanding of the mind.

Where did I say that there are no feedback mechanisms or loops? This is typical of your ignorance, misrepresentation and rudeness.

I am rude to people who won't answer my questions.

I laugh at claims made about the mind in the complete absence of any objective understanding of what the mind is.

I laugh at stupidity like having many subjective guesses magically becomes objective data.

I said nothing about feedback loops.

I said the mind can have feedback influence on the brain.

Are the ideas you believe something you have freely chosen or have they been forced upon you by a reflexive brain?

I doubt you have a clue what the implications of the question even are.

 

[none]

What's free? I want in on this.

Still waiting for someone to actually explain. It may be a long time waiting. Perhaps tea and scones while we wait......

With dried grapes or rasins?

 

[DBT]

My reputation?

Yes, the way you respond to posters who disagree with your beliefs, which is there for anyone to see.

I said the mind can have feedback influence on the brain.

You said. You say a lot of things that you can't support. The mind is not independent from the brain. It is brain activity that generates mind. There are multiple feedback loops.

Are the ideas you believe something you have freely chosen or have they been forced upon you by a reflexive brain?

I doubt you have a clue what the implications of the question even are.

Your Strawman again. A mechanism, neural in this instance, isn't forced to function according to its own architecture, it performs according the way it evolved to perform, its abilities and functions being enabled by its networks and architecture.

This has been explained over and over, yet you bring it up time and time again.