In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[Juma]

So you are actully considering act without reason as a legit example of will? That is an act without making any thought at all (and no unconcious reasoning either) , just a random act.

That's if we have indeterminate freedoms by way of quantum mechanics.

But no one else thinks that that is considered actual will at all. It is only appropriate to talk about "will" in relation to how you make choices, not how you perform random acts that even you self dont know the reason for.

 

[The AntiChris]

I have to say I find it difficult to follow your reasoning at the best of times and your inclusion of irrelevant 'overview' information just serves to exacerbate the situation.

It's nowhere near as difficult to understand as you like to make out.

Look, you really don't need to deliver the full anti-free-will sermon (with random quotes from people who agree with you) in every response.

Our disagreement is about the use of the word 'free' to describe 'will'. I just don't accept your insistence that the word free in this context can only mean freedom from deterministic causes. I'm guessing that this is your attempt at justifying your usage:

For example -''Compatibilists (or "soft determinists" as they have been known since William James) identify free will with freedom of action - the lack of external constraints. We are free, and we have free will, if we are not in physical chains. But freedom of the will is different from freedom of action.'' - utterly fails as an argument for free will because action is a consequence of 'will' but action based on will says nothing about the nature of 'will.'

I'm afraid I can't make sense of this. I don't understand the distinction you're attempting to make - I'm sure you're aware that 'will' and purposeful action are inextricably linked.

It would be extremely helpful if you could set your argument out in the form of a syllogism (a set of discrete logical steps) which lead logically to your conclusion:

"Therefore the word 'free' can only mean freedom from deterministic causation in the context of free will."​

 

[DBT]

Our disagreement is about the use of the word 'free' to describe 'will'.

That is what I have been addressing, the reasons why the 'freedom' of the constituent parts of a determined system is not an attribute of the system....whatever the constituent parts may happen to believe (being determined by their condition within the system), or created regardless of actual conditions through the use of language.

I just don't accept your insistence that the word free in this context can only mean freedom from deterministic causes. I'm guessing that this is your attempt at justifying your usage:

Well, rather than just 'not accepting,' why don't you give an example of this proposed freedom, and provide an argument for its validity?

Word usage alone being insufficient to establish the reality of something may not exist regardless of word usage, ie, gods, demons, space aliens....

Why not justify your own usage? So far you have made no attempt to do that.

What precisely is the nature of 'freedom' if no actual (rather than perceived) alternative is available?

That actions necessarily follow antecedent events, not being an example of freedom of will.

I'm afraid I can't make sense of this. I don't understand the distinction you're attempting to make - I'm sure you're aware that 'will' and purposeful action are inextricably linked.

This issue is addressed in both of the articles I quoted and linked, and I have explained the distinction between will and action in numerous posts.

It would be extremely helpful if you could set your argument out in the form of a syllogism (a set of discrete logical steps) which lead logically to your conclusion:

"Therefore the word 'free' can only mean freedom from deterministic causation in the context of free will."​

I have, but before I yet again repeat what I have already provided, I'll first ask you to explain what you believe is the nature of ''freedom'' under conditions where no possible alternative thought or action is possible, only the decision and it related action as determined by the system?

 

[The AntiChris]

I just don't accept your insistence that the word free in this context can only mean freedom from deterministic causes. I'm guessing that this is your attempt at justifying your usage:

Well, rather than just 'not accepting,' why don't you give an example of this proposed freedom, and provide an argument for its validity?

I'm not proposing any particular usage. I'm just trying to understand how you justify your extraordinary claim that the word 'free' cannot be used to describe 'will' in any possible context. It's an astounding claim about word usage that demands justification.

A clear and unambiguous logical argument is what's needed.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ultimately, people are free to decide what they mean using the words they use. All theories are dependent on meaning and meaning is something people have in mind not something specified by some 1984-clunky bureaucracy. Most people have some sense of free will and I'd be very surprised if most hardcore materialists were not like most people in this respect. Most debates on this issue are only motivated by ideology and the result usually does not make much sense. The sun rises at sunrise and reams of literature will not convince many that this is not true. And one doesn't need to think too long about it to understand the basics.
EB

 

[ryan]

That's if we have indeterminate freedoms by way of quantum mechanics.

But no one else thinks that that is considered actual will at all. It is only appropriate to talk about "will" in relation to how you make choices, not how you perform random acts that even you self dont know the reason for.

Your argument is that nobody thinks this?

Why does will have to have a reason?

 

[Juma]

But no one else thinks that that is considered actual will at all. It is only appropriate to talk about "will" in relation to how you make choices, not how you perform random acts that even you self dont know the reason for.

Your argument is that nobody thinks this?

Why does will have to have a reason?

Nice start of a poem...

Because that is what will is. A person without will is always acting on feelings.

if you perform an action without any reason at all, not even feelings then what is it? Just a random action.

 

[ryan]

Your argument is that nobody thinks this?

Why does will have to have a reason?

Nice start of a poem...

Because that is what will is. A person without will is always acting on feelings.

if you perform an action without any reason at all, not even feelings then what is it? Just a random action.

That is your definition. See,http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/will . Your definition is more about why the will chooses what it chooses or where it comes from.

 

[rrr6]

Free will is an illusion.

The best poetry is derived from our access to mind/intellect and feelings i.e. heart/soul and mind/intellect.

Experience feeds the biological/soul/heart and may lead to access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect. No gurrantees.

Perfect circle, has infinite set angular degrees of freedom because it is just abstract metaphiscal-1 concept. Most here at free talk ridicule have not clue of this differrence. imho

Heart/soul/biological has finite/limited set of angular degrees.

The truth exists for those with sincerity of heart{ desire } and some effort to find it. imho

Far and few between here at talk free ridicule. imho

r6

 

[Juma]

Nice start of a poem...

Because that is what will is. A person without will is always acting on feelings.

if you perform an action without any reason at all, not even feelings then what is it? Just a random action.

That is your definition. See,http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/will . Your definition is more about why the will chooses what it chooses or where it comes from.

The definition you (p)referred:
"The faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action"

But that changes nothing. Free will was invented to explain how we are responsible for our actions.

 

[ryan]

That is your definition. See,http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/will . Your definition is more about why the will chooses what it chooses or where it comes from.

The definition you (p)referred:
"The faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action"

But that changes nothing. Free will was invented to explain how we are responsible for our actions.

Think about what faculty means, and then look at the next 3 definitions. Sorry but I will not accept your definition over a definition that is already well established.

 

[fast]

Whether someone is or isn't acting of their own free will depends on whether there is a compulsory reason to act in opposition to what one wants to do.

I disagree. It's not something which comes as a result of what one wants to do but rather a discussion of how one got to what they want to do in the first place.

How do you figure?

If I want to do something, then what might be a compulsion for another to act contrari-wise isn't a compulsion for me, so if I do that which I want, I am doing so of my own free will. If I don't want to do something, and if there is a compelling force to do so anyway, then doing so isn't a choice to do so of my own free will.

 

[DBT]

Well, rather than just 'not accepting,' why don't you give an example of this proposed freedom, and provide an argument for its validity?

I'm not proposing any particular usage. I'm just trying to understand how you justify your extraordinary claim that the word 'free' cannot be used to describe 'will' in any possible context. It's an astounding claim about word usage that demands justification.

A clear and unambiguous logical argument is what's needed.

You ignore all clear unambiguous arguments that are given, even if you happen believe that I haven't, clear unambiguous arguments are included in the articles I have provided.

Instead of actually reading what is said, and addressing the relevant points, you complain that I repeatedly post articles.... articles that happen address your questions!

Nor is it, as you dramatically like to put it, 'an astounding claim'.

For instance, how hard is it to grasp the basic concept of - 'the word is not the actual thing it refers to?'

The word ''moon'' is not the moon itself.

The word ''God'' is not God itself.

The term 'free will' is not free will itself, regardless of common references and word usage.

Despite common references to 'God' - including the features, attributes and wishes of God - the thing being commonly referred to as 'God' most probably does not exist.

Word use per se, semantics, prove nothing.

''If the argument is valid but the premises are not true, then again the conclusion may or may not be true, but the argument can't help us decide this.''

So I ask you again, AntiChris: how is freedom possible within a determined or deterministic system where the parts cannot do otherwise in any given circumstance, but the decision and consequent action that is determined by circumstances and events?

Where does freedom lie within a determined system? Can you explain? Keep in mind that a reply consisting of various version of 'that is how words are used'' does not prove anything, not the existence of God, or free will.

 

[The AntiChris]

I'm not proposing any particular usage. I'm just trying to understand how you justify your extraordinary claim that the word 'free' cannot be used to describe 'will' in any possible context. It's an astounding claim about word usage that demands justification.

A clear and unambiguous logical argument is what's needed.

So I ask you again, AntiChris: how is freedom possible within a determined or deterministic system where the parts cannot do otherwise in any given circumstance....

Freedom from what?

In linguistics meaning is usually derived from usage in context. The precise meaning of words which can have multiple meanings such as 'free' and 'freedom' will depend on how the word is commonly used in specific contexts.

However, since you reject 'meaning is usage', how did you come to the certainty that freedom of the will must, and can only mean, freedom from deterministic causes?

Keep in mind that a reply consisting of various version of 'that is how words are used'' does not prove anything, not the existence of God, or free will.

The issue here isn't a dispute about 'existence' it's about the meaning of words.

 

[Juma]

The definition you (p)referred:
"The faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action"

But that changes nothing. Free will was invented to explain how we are responsible for our actions.

Think about what faculty means, and then look at the next 3 definitions. Sorry but I will not accept your definition over a definition that is already well established.

What "next 3 definitions"? There was only one fitting at your link and thst was the one a cited., you will have to explicitly state your definition. I will not go hunting on the internet to do your job.

 

[fast]

So I ask you again, AntiChris: how is freedom possible within a determined or deterministic system where the parts cannot do otherwise in any given circumstance, but the decision and consequent action that is determined by circumstances and events?

Where does freedom lie within a determined system? Can you explain? Keep in mind that a reply consisting of various version of 'that is how words are used'' does not prove anything, not the existence of God, or free will.

I believe the answer lies in the scope of the terms. If every single micro event that does occur must occur (by physical necessity), then no wonder free will is thought of as an illusion, as necessary micro events dictate all future macro events. The problem, however, is while a discussion about a determined system is applicable to both micro level and macro level events, a discussion of free will ought to be recognized such that it excludes micro-level events, and this makes any underlying micro level deterministic system irrelevant as to whether or not we have free will.

If I want to eat vanilla ice cream and have the option to instead eat chocolate ice cream, and if there is no macro level event compelling me one way or the other, then I can choose to eat what I want of my own free will. The argument that I must eat what I will eat because of an underlying micro level deterministic system is defeated not because of what meets the eye of the obvious consequence of a determined system but because the answer to whether one is acting of one's own free will excludes the repercussions of micro-level events.

 

[ryan]

Think about what faculty means, and then look at the next 3 definitions. Sorry but I will not accept your definition over a definition that is already well established.

What "next 3 definitions"? There was only one fitting at your link and thst was the one a cited., you will have to explicitly state your definition. I will not go hunting on the internet to do your job.

1.1 "Control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one’s own impulses"

1.2 "A deliberate or fixed desire or intention"

1.3 "The thing that one desires or ordains"

 

[Juma]

In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

What "next 3 definitions"? There was only one fitting at your link and thst was the one a cited., you will have to explicitly state your definition. I will not go hunting on the internet to do your job.

1.1 "Control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one’s own impulses"

1.2 "A deliberate or fixed desire or intention"

1.3 "The thing that one desires or ordains"

Ok. How does this help you? It say either you want it or you deliberatety do it: that isl: either you act on feelings or you have thought out what you should do. Neither is "random actions".

 

[DBT]

So I ask you again, AntiChris: how is freedom possible within a determined or deterministic system where the parts cannot do otherwise in any given circumstance....

Freedom from what?

In linguistics meaning is usually derived from usage in context. The precise meaning of words which can have multiple meanings such as 'free' and 'freedom' will depend on how the word is commonly used in specific contexts.

That's exactly what I have been saying, and giving examples of and included syllogisms. That meaning of a word is defined by references and context, and as a symbol used for the purpose of communication, specifically represents the article it refers to. Hence 'free from coercion' says nothing whatsoever about the nature of 'will'- be it free or not free. This being separate question. On that is related to the source and production of will, and not the presence or absence of one element of 'will'

However, since you reject 'meaning is usage', how did you come to the certainty that freedom of the will must, and can only mean, freedom from deterministic causes?

I don't reject usage, just question the validity of some common applications....for example, what does the word 'god' - a common reference - actually represent? Something that actually exists? A real Zeus who lives on Mt Olympus?

What does the term 'free will' represent in terms of some actual attribute of the brain and its functions? This question applies regardless of the absence of coercion. Will is what it is in the absence of coercion, so an absence of coercion is just an absence of coercion within the preexisting structure or characteristics of brain generated 'will'

The issue here isn't a dispute about 'existence' it's about the meaning of words.

Sure, and words as symbols are defined by the things they are used in reference to: context.

The object that the word 'motorcycle' represent is not represented by the word 'motorcar'

The word 'Moon' does not represent the 'Sun' - two very different objects that exist in their own right.

Similarly, the absence of coercion does not equate to 'freedom of will' because 'will' and 'coercion' are two entirely different things.

 

[DBT]

So I ask you again, AntiChris: how is freedom possible within a determined or deterministic system where the parts cannot do otherwise in any given circumstance, but the decision and consequent action that is determined by circumstances and events?

Where does freedom lie within a determined system? Can you explain? Keep in mind that a reply consisting of various version of 'that is how words are used'' does not prove anything, not the existence of God, or free will.

I believe the answer lies in the scope of the terms. If every single micro event that does occur must occur (by physical necessity), then no wonder free will is thought of as an illusion, as necessary micro events dictate all future macro events. The problem, however, is while a discussion about a determined system is applicable to both micro level and macro level events, a discussion of free will ought to be recognized such that it excludes micro-level events, and this makes any underlying micro level deterministic system irrelevant as to whether or not we have free will.

If I want to eat vanilla ice cream and have the option to instead eat chocolate ice cream, and if there is no macro level event compelling me one way or the other, then I can choose to eat what I want of my own free will. The argument that I must eat what I will eat because of an underlying micro level deterministic system is defeated not because of what meets the eye of the obvious consequence of a determined system but because the answer to whether one is acting of one's own free will excludes the repercussions of micro-level events.

You already are what you desire and what you choose. Your desires are developed over a lifetime (especially during the formative years) through experience, and encoded in memory, which is stimulated by the options that are being presented and the most appealing option becomes the strongest stimulator of desire. Another part of the brain points out (inputs) the drawbacks to taking this option and an inner conflict of interests ensues, and the underlying micro level deterministic system is the sole agent of the decision making process, there being no independent 'you' that over rides the decision making process being represented as conscious electrochemical activity.