In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[The AntiChris]

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.

I'm afraid this is one of your least coherent posts.

It's almost complete gibberish.

 

[ryan]

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.

Look at them again. Nowhere do the definitions say that will must come from feelings or thought. I don't even know or care why we are talking about will; what happened to free will? You move the goalposts so gradually, I don't even notice anymore.

 

[Juma]

In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

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.

Look at them again. Nowhere do the definitions say that will must come from feelings or thought. I don't even know or care why we are talking about will; what happened to free will? You move the goalposts so gradually, I don't even notice anymore.

Ok, let us retract the current discussion and start it again:

This is what you wrote:

A choice could be random to anyone observing the person making it. But it wouldn't be random to the person making the choice.

If the person dont thibk his choice where random then he must know the reasons for it. If there are reasons then his action follows from this reasons and are thus not fred.

 

[ryan]

Look at them again. Nowhere do the definitions say that will must come from feelings or thought. I don't even know or care why we are talking about will; what happened to free will? You move the goalposts so gradually, I don't even notice anymore.

Ok, let us retract the current discussion and start it again:

This is what you wrote:

A choice could be random to anyone observing the person making it. But it wouldn't be random to the person making the choice.

If the person dont thibk his choice where random then he must know the reasons for it. If there are reasons then his action follows from this reasons and are thus not fred.

I think that we make many decisions and do many things that we don't understand the reasons for. I remember reading somewhere that most of our brain activity is done unconsciously. I will not search for the articles because I would expect that you know this already.

And, even if you think you know why you make some of your more thought out decisions, the reasons will only be quite shallow. You will find that if you ask why a few more times, you will not be able to answer even the most obvious decisions.

Reality controls itself. But we get a say too because we are also reality.

 

[Juma]

Ok, let us retract the current discussion and start it again:

This is what you wrote:

A choice could be random to anyone observing the person making it. But it wouldn't be random to the person making the choice.

If the person dont thibk his choice where random then he must know the reasons for it. If there are reasons then his action follows from this reasons and are thus not fred.

I think that we make many decisions and do many things that we don't understand the reasons for. I remember reading somewhere that most of our brain activity is done unconsciously. I will not search for the articles because I would expect that you know this already.

And, even if you think you know why you make some of your more thought out decisions, the reasons will only be quite shallow. You will find that if you ask why a few more times, you will not be able to answer even the most obvious decisions.

Reality controls itself. But we get a say too because we are also reality.

Yes, exactly my point. We are reality, and thus follows the laws of nature.

But you miss the point: even if you dont know there is causes.

 

[ryan]

I think that we make many decisions and do many things that we don't understand the reasons for. I remember reading somewhere that most of our brain activity is done unconsciously. I will not search for the articles because I would expect that you know this already.

And, even if you think you know why you make some of your more thought out decisions, the reasons will only be quite shallow. You will find that if you ask why a few more times, you will not be able to answer even the most obvious decisions.

Reality controls itself. But we get a say too because we are also reality.

Yes, exactly my point. We are reality, and thus follows the laws of nature.

But you miss the point: even if you dont know there is causes.

The causes may only influence what I choose. Ultimately, quantum mechanics may give me some freedom.

 

[bilby]

Yes, exactly my point. We are reality, and thus follows the laws of nature.

But you miss the point: even if you dont know there is causes.

The causes may only influence what I choose. Ultimately, quantum mechanics may give me some freedom.

How?

How can QM give you freedom, that you couldn't equally get from dice rolls or coin flipping?

Randomness is not freedom. Probability is not freedom. QM is not freedom.

 

[Juma]

Yes, exactly my point. We are reality, and thus follows the laws of nature.

But you miss the point: even if you dont know there is causes.

The causes may only influence what I choose. Ultimately, quantum mechanics may give me some freedom.

Bilby has already stated the valid response to this.

 

[ryan]

The causes may only influence what I choose. Ultimately, quantum mechanics may give me some freedom.

How?

How can QM give you freedom, that you couldn't equally get from dice rolls or coin flipping?

Assuming that the dice is truly random like QM, the major difference is that you aren't the dice. If the dice intended on rolling a certain number, then I would accept the analogy.

 

[bilby]

How?

How can QM give you freedom, that you couldn't equally get from dice rolls or coin flipping?

Assuming that the dice is truly random like QM, the major difference is that you aren't the dice. If the dice intended on rolling a certain number, then I would accept the analogy.

I didn't make an analogy, ryan; I asked a question.

How can QM (or any other circumstance that involves randomness) give you freedom?

 

[ryan]

Assuming that the dice is truly random like QM, the major difference is that you aren't the dice. If the dice intended on rolling a certain number, then I would accept the analogy.

I didn't make an analogy, ryan; I asked a question.

How can QM (or any other circumstance that involves randomness) give you freedom?

If everything is QM, then we are QM too. My choices are quantum mechanical. QM nature of a given system gives it/someone freedom to do anything within certain limits and probability densities.

 

[bilby]

I didn't make an analogy, ryan; I asked a question.

How can QM (or any other circumstance that involves randomness) give you freedom?

If everything is QM, then we are QM too. My choices are quantum mechanical. QM nature of a given system gives it/someone freedom to do anything within certain limits and probability densities.

That is nonsense. QM is a theory; the nature of a theory is that it is predictive.

QM, like all theories, is a mechanism by which we can predict how a system will behave given its starting state and inputs. The outputs of QM are expressed as probabilities. The probability of X is y and the probability of NOT X is 1-y.

How does that get you freedom?

 

[ryan]

If everything is QM, then we are QM too. My choices are quantum mechanical. QM nature of a given system gives it/someone freedom to do anything within certain limits and probability densities.

That is nonsense. QM is a theory; the nature of a theory is that it is predictive.

QM, like all theories, is a mechanism by which we can predict how a system will behave given its starting state and inputs. The outputs of QM are expressed as probabilities. The probability of X is y and the probability of NOT X is 1-y.

You are reaching. QM literally gives freedom to particles. With some limitations, particles are literally free to go almost anywhere they want. The output is random, exactly what you would expect when observing something that is free.

 

[bilby]

That is nonsense. QM is a theory; the nature of a theory is that it is predictive.

QM, like all theories, is a mechanism by which we can predict how a system will behave given its starting state and inputs. The outputs of QM are expressed as probabilities. The probability of X is y and the probability of NOT X is 1-y.

You are reaching. QM literally gives freedom to particles. With some limitations, particles are literally free to go almost anywhere they want. The output is random, exactly what you would expect when observing something that is free.

So you are saying that because people do not behave randomly, they do not have free will?

Or are you trying to say that people do behave randomly?

Regardless, you are wrong; the output of QM is probabilistic, not random. If the motion of particles in QM were random, then by definition, QM (or anything else) would be unable to predict it. An electron could be anywhere in the universe. But it is so unlikely to be more than about a nanometre from the nucleus of its parent atom that you won't find it outside that radius once, even if you look every nanosecond for a century.

For that highly predictable nature of subatomic particles to be in some way tied to free will on human scales seems extremely dubious to me; and you are not making a good argument for why I should revise my position.

By what mechanism does QM lead to free will?

 

[ryan]

You are reaching. QM literally gives freedom to particles. With some limitations, particles are literally free to go almost anywhere they want. The output is random, exactly what you would expect when observing something that is free.

So you are saying that because people do not behave randomly, they do not have free will?

Or are you trying to say that people do behave randomly?

People behave randomly within certain limits and probabilities.

Regardless, you are wrong; the output of QM is probabilistic, not random. If the motion of particles in QM were random, then by definition, QM (or anything else) would be unable to predict it.

You might be right; I don't seem to have the will to get out of this painful argument.

There is an infinite number of places where the electron can be, and nobody/nothing knows. That covers the most strict definition of random that I could find, but just in case that's not enough, I should add that there is an infinite number of places that the electron has an infinite number of equal probabilities of being in.

 

[DBT]

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.

I'm afraid this is one of your least coherent posts.

It's almost complete gibberish.

Not really. Certainly not because you say so.

It's just basic logic. As I've pointed out to you, words merely represent ideas, objects and events for purpose of communication. Sp if you want to argue for the reality of something, free will in this instance, you need to define your terms and references.

Which is what I have done, referring to the process of decision making and formation of will....and you have not done. Taking the option of making banal comments and unfounded assertions instead of offering logical arguments for your case.

If you can't grasp the simple notion of the symbolic nature of words and language, there is no hope of you understanding what I said.

Simple enough that it doesn't need explaining, nor some weird mock incomprehension response from someone who should know better.

Language Is Symbolic
''Our language system is primarily made up of symbols. A symbol is something that stands in for or represents something else. Symbols
Symbols can be communicated verbally (speaking the word hello), in writing (putting ... The symbolic nature of our communication is a quality unique to humans...''

 

[DBT]

I didn't make an analogy, ryan; I asked a question.

How can QM (or any other circumstance that involves randomness) give you freedom?

If everything is QM, then we are QM too.

QM describes physics on a quantum scale, QM is not to be confused with a ToE....which has not yet been formulated. The closest thing being QM and General Relativity. Even so, this cannot be used to explain evolution or animal behaviour, for example.

Your QM free will proposition is a dead end.

 

[The AntiChris]

if you want to argue for the reality of something

After all our exchanges you still don't understand what this dispute is about.

I'm not arguing for the "reality" (or 'existence') of anything.

I'm disputing your dogmatic insistence that the term 'free will' can only have one meaning (i.e. a 'will' that is free from deterministic causality). Our dispute is about the possible meanings of the term 'free will'.

 

[DBT]

if you want to argue for the reality of something

After all our exchanges you still don't understand what this dispute is about.

I'm not arguing for the "reality" (or 'existence') of anything.

I'm disputing your dogmatic insistence that the term 'free will' can only have one meaning (i.e. a 'will' that is free from deterministic causality). Our dispute is about the possible meanings of the term 'free will'.

I know exactly what you are saying, and I am pointing out why what you are saying is flawed. Nor have you given a reasoned argument for your claim, you merely state it, then repeat your statement and your objections. Never addressing the problems.

 

[The AntiChris]

if you want to argue for the reality of something

I'm not arguing for the "reality" (or 'existence') of anything.

I know exactly what you are saying