In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[DBT]

No, no I don't say that.

The maybe you can explain unambiguously what you do mean.

You said:

common usage does not refer to my version of 'free will'

You also say that you're not using your own private meaning. That seems to me to exhaust all possibilities.

Well, it doesn't exhaust all possibilities!!

It doesn't exhaust the things that I actually listed: the things that people are referring to when they use the term 'free will!'

As I said; common meaning being established through common usage and references, references that are established through the use of language for the purpose of communicating information.

In this instance, the use of the term 'free will in reference to conscious decision making, conscious control, absence of coercion, etc.

These are not my private meanings. It has nothing to do with me. Again, it is common usage and common meaning.

That is the explanation. It is so straightforward that it does not need a series of complicated explanations. If you don't agree with the common references to free will that I have listed, you should address that and not conjure up something that I did not say, imply or even hint at.

We've established that your version of free will is not derived from common usage and yet you say it's not you own private usage. So, what is the source of your use then?

My version of free will? I don't have a version of free will!!! I am arguing that the term itself is irrelevant, that it is a misnomer.

I don't know how you think this comment explains anything because it doesn't make sense grammatically or logically. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

It shouldn't be difficult to grasp: if someone is referring to an absence of coercion as being 'free will' - that is the reference and related meaning of the term 'free will in that instance of use.

If someone is referring to conscious decision making as being 'free will' - that is the reference and related meaning of the term 'free will' in that instance of use.

If someone is referring to conscious control or conscious agency - that is the reference and related meaning of the term 'free will' in that instance of use.

This has nothing to do with me, it is how the term is generally being used. People generally believe free will to be the ability to make conscious decisions and to act on the decision that is made. If you don't agree with this, you should explain why it is not being used in this way.

 

[DBT]

If I did have free will, would you be able to predict what I would will, or would it appear to be random?

I have absolutely no access to your brain condition and state, and given the sheer complexity of the brain and the range of behaviours it may produce, I cannot predict what you may do in all situations. Though I can make better predictions if I knew you better, your proclivities, etc.

Human behaviour can in fact be predicted to a surprising degree, if rational. Human behaviour becomes increasingly more difficult to predict in the presence of neural damage or chemical imbalances, where it becomes more random and more irrational and therefore, maladaptive.

If free will must be ruled by coherency, then how is it free?

I argue that will is not free. That the term is irrelevant, that it is the decision making activity of the brain, an interaction of inputs and memory function, that is expressed in the form of conscious thought, decision making and 'will' - the latter aspects being a product of the former.

You obviously don't know that as I have already shown that people in this field don't even know that. Not only that, but new technologies are now able to show signs that quantum mechanisms do, or at least seem, to play a role in the consciousness. If that's the case, then I would think this would entail at least some randomness.

Macro scale objects are not random or unpredictable. You can calculate the orbits of comets, planets, meteorites, etc, etc, to a high degree of accuracy and make predictions in terms of position and velocity hundreds or even thousands of year into the future.

Again, all brains are composed of atomic particles, but the brains of different species have evolved to fit into the ecological niche of that species.

Therefore the thoughts, perception and experience of the world of the brain of a butterfly is vastly different to the perception and experience of the world of the brain of a human....so despite the fact that both are composed of atomic particles and 'quantum vibrations in microtubules' it is not that which determines the difference between the two, but neural architecture, degree of complexity and information processing capacity.

 

[The AntiChris]

The maybe you can explain unambiguously what you do mean.

You said:

common usage does not refer to my version of 'free will'

You also say that you're not using your own private meaning. That seems to me to exhaust all possibilities.

Well, it doesn't exhaust all possibilities!!

It doesn't exhaust the things that I actually listed: the things that people are referring to when they use the term 'free will!'

But what "people refer to when they use the term" is common usage.

And yet you say "common usage does not refer to my version of free will".

That's a contradiction

We've established that your version of free will is not derived from common usage and yet you say it's not you own private usage. So, what is the source of your use then?

My version of free will? I don't have a version of free will!!!

Really?

common usage does not refer to my version of 'free will'

Another contradiction.

Look, in order for you to reject 'free will' you must have a specific meaning in mind - this is "your" version.

The term 'free will' in common usage refers precisely to what it refers to when the reference is being made, in the instance it is made.

I don't know how you think this comment explains anything because it doesn't make sense grammatically or logically. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

It shouldn't be difficult to grasp...

Are you serious? Have you actually read what you said? I defy anyone to make sense of that 'sentence'.

I am arguing that the term itself is irrelevant, that it is a misnomer.

Ok I'm gonna go out on a limb and take a guess at what you're saying here.

I'm guessing that you reject the term 'free will' no matter what anyone may mean when they use the term. I'm also guessing that the reason you reject the term is because in your view the word 'free' can only refer to an absence of deterministic causes and the word 'will' can only refer to the specific neurological process of human decision-making (a deterministic system) and, therefore, the word 'free' cannot be used to describe 'will'.

That's right isn't it?

 

[ryan]

The way we can test free will is by having a subject make a choice. Any quantum effect in the process in making the decision that leaves any number of other possible outcomes is, in my opinion, evidence of free will.

No. Quantum effects != free will. QM effects is random, not intentional choices.

You don't know that for sure. They are random to an outside observer, and that is exactly what you should expect when observing free will.

When I feel like I am intending to do something, a quantum mechanism is exactly what you would expect to see as part of my thought process.

To observe free will you have show that the agent behaves/works in a specific way that only can be described as free will.

For 100th time, I am not making a positive claim.

 

[PyramidHead]

No. Quantum effects != free will. QM effects is random, not intentional choices.

You don't know that for sure. They are random to an outside observer, and that is exactly what you should expect when observing free will.

Since quantum particles make up everything, isn't that exactly what you should expect when observing anything, including things that are clearly NOT free will?

 

[ryan]

I have absolutely no access to your brain condition and state, and given the sheer complexity of the brain and the range of behaviours it may produce, I cannot predict what you may do in all situations. Though I can make better predictions if I knew you better, your proclivities, etc.

Please answer the question that I posted last time, "If I did have free will, would you be able to predict what I would will, or would it appear to be random?". This will hopefully end the argument about whether or not free will would appear to an outside observer as randomness.

Human behaviour can in fact be predicted to a surprising degree, if rational.

I agree. But we still may have QM/random inputs. If that is the case, then we may ultimately be unpredictable.

If free will must be ruled by coherency, then how is it free?

I argue that will is not free. That the term is irrelevant, that it is the decision making activity of the brain, an interaction of inputs and memory function, that is expressed in the form of conscious thought, decision making and 'will' - the latter aspects being a product of the former.

Okay, I misunderstood what you said.

You obviously don't know that as I have already shown that people in this field don't even know that. Not only that, but new technologies are now able to show signs that quantum mechanisms do, or at least seem, to play a role in the consciousness. If that's the case, then I would think this would entail at least some randomness.

Macro scale objects are not random or unpredictable. You can calculate the orbits of comets, planets, meteorites, etc, etc, to a high degree of accuracy and make predictions in terms of position and velocity hundreds or even thousands of year into the future.

Nothing is further away from QM than comets and planets. I strongly don't think that's a fair comparison to the scale and intricacies of the brain.

Therefore the thoughts, perception and experience of the world of the brain of a butterfly is vastly different to the perception and experience of the world of the brain of a human....so despite the fact that both are composed of atomic particles and 'quantum vibrations in microtubules' it is not that which determines the difference between the two, but neural architecture, degree of complexity and information processing capacity.

It comes down to a thought experiment that takes two perfectly identical clones that are put into perfectly identical environments. Everything would follow classical mechanics right down to the particles except for their thinking processes. Any divergence between the two would demonstrate QM effects.

Regarding this argument, I have the luxury of saying, "I don't know if the clones would diverge". However, you and others continually choose to make the positive assumption that they wouldn't diverge. Obviously nobody knows this especially since they are working on finding evidence to the contrary.

And there are many other examples that shows that your statement, "Macro scale objects are not random or unpredictable" is flat out wrong. After all of the examples that have proven to demonstrate QM at the macro scale, how can you make such a false statement?! This makes me crazy.

 

[ryan]

You don't know that for sure. They are random to an outside observer, and that is exactly what you should expect when observing free will.

Since quantum particles make up everything, isn't that exactly what you should expect when observing anything, including things that are clearly NOT free will?

We are talking about agents/humans that make choices. I say that we are our choices, and we are the quantum mechanisms, if such mechanisms exist, that give us a certain degree of freedom in some of the choices we make.

 

[Juma]

No. Quantum effects != free will. QM effects is random, not intentional choices.

You don't know that for sure. They are random to an outside observer, and that is exactly what you should expect when observing free will.

nope, random behavior wont even be recogniced as "will".

When I feel like I am intending to do something, a quantum mechanism is exactly what you would expect to see as part of my thought process.

So you somehow know how it feels to be a quantum mechanism.. Worst argument ever.

For 100th time, I am not making a positive claim.

Yes you do. Lots of them.

 

[ryan]

You don't know that for sure. They are random to an outside observer, and that is exactly what you should expect when observing free will.

nope, random behavior wont even be recogniced as "will".

Don't you know my argument by now? I am saying that free will implies randomness (to an observer), not randomness implies free will.

When I feel like I am intending to do something, a quantum mechanism is exactly what you would expect to see as part of my thought process.

So you somehow know how it feels to be a quantum mechanism.. Worst argument ever.

So if I am not QM, then what am I - a soul?

For 100th time, I am not making a positive claim.

Yes you do. Lots of them.

You have got to be kidding me!

 

[PyramidHead]

nope, random behavior wont even be recogniced as "will".

Don't you know my argument by now? I am saying that free will implies randomness (to an observer), not randomness implies free will.

I don't think either of those are true. If you perform an action of your own free will, I would expect it to look like you carefully considered the options available, weighed the pros and cons, and then made a choice based on those parameters without someone else forcing you one way or another. I wouldn't expect you to suddenly jump out of your seat and exclaim "spaghetti!" at the top of your lungs. In fact, spontaneous behavior with no rationale is pretty much the opposite of what free will means to me, and most people I know who talk about it. Nothing about randomness is free in the same way free will is supposed to be free.

 

[Juma]

nope, random behavior wont even be recogniced as "will".

Don't you know my argument by now? I am saying that free will implies randomness (to an observer), not randomness implies free will.

I know you say that and it is not going to be true just because you keep repeating it.

 

[ryan]

Don't you know my argument by now? I am saying that free will implies randomness (to an observer), not randomness implies free will.

I don't think either of those are true. If you perform an action of your own free will, I would expect it to look like you carefully considered the options available, weighed the pros and cons, and then made a choice based on those parameters without someone else forcing you one way or another. I wouldn't expect you to suddenly jump out of your seat and exclaim "spaghetti!" at the top of your lungs. In fact, spontaneous behavior with no rationale is pretty much the opposite of what free will means to me, and most people I know who talk about it. Nothing about randomness is free in the same way free will is supposed to be free.

So are you saying that free will would not give me the freedom to act irrationally? I like to eat at fast food restaurants. It's not rational, but I do it anyways. I know that most of us choose to be irrational at least some of the time.

 

[ryan]

Don't you know my argument by now? I am saying that free will implies randomness (to an observer), not randomness implies free will.

I know you say that and it is not going to be true just because you keep repeating it.

How could observing a choice not look random to an outside observer? How could someone predict what free will does?

 

[Juma]

I know you say that and it is not going to be true just because you keep repeating it.

How could observing a choice not look random to an outside observer? How could someone predict what free will does?

Because "free will" is not what you think it is.

 

[ryan]

How could observing a choice not look random to an outside observer? How could someone predict what free will does?

Because "free will" is not what you think it is.

For a definition of free will, I am going with, "“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ .

So exactly how is my argument conflicting with this definition, or your definition?

 

[Juma]

Because "free will" is not what you think it is.

For a definition of free will, I am going with, "“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ .

So exactly how is my argument conflicting with this definition, or your definition?

Because randomly selecting options is not what signifies a rational agent.

 

[ryan]

For a definition of free will, I am going with, "“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ .

So exactly how is my argument conflicting with this definition, or your definition?

Because randomly selecting options is not what signifies a rational agent.

Here is how they are using "rational",

1. Rational Deliberation

1.1 Free Will as Choosing on the Basis of One's Desires

On a minimalist account, free will is the ability to select a course of action as a means of fulfilling some desire.

from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#1 .

 

[Juma]

Because randomly selecting options is not what signifies a rational agent.

Here is how they are using "rational",

1. Rational Deliberation

1.1 Free Will as Choosing on the Basis of One's Desires

On a minimalist account, free will is the ability to select a course of action as a means of fulfilling some desire.

from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#1 .

Yes? How would random input from QM effects make you fulfill desires? They wont because they will have no information about your desires.

I could stretch as far as saying that QM effects can be partly responsible for the desire felt.

And I question who would say that "following your desires" really is a sign of (any type) of free will since that is totallythf opposite of how it is used.

 

[ryan]

Here is how they are using "rational",

1. Rational Deliberation

1.1 Free Will as Choosing on the Basis of One's Desires

On a minimalist account, free will is the ability to select a course of action as a means of fulfilling some desire.

from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#1 .

Yes? How would random input from QM effects make you fulfill desires? They wont because they will have no information about your desires.

The random input would be your desires in action.

I could stretch as far as saying that QM effects can be partly responsible for the desire felt.

I don't know what you mean here.

And I question who would say that "following your desires" really is a sign of (any type) of free will since that is totallythf opposite of how it is used.

Are you saying that free will would not give the agent the freedom to choose according to the agent's desires?

 

[DBT]

The maybe you can explain unambiguously what you do mean.

You said:

common usage does not refer to my version of 'free will'

You also say that you're not using your own private meaning. That seems to me to exhaust all possibilities.

Well, it doesn't exhaust all possibilities!!

It doesn't exhaust the things that I actually listed: the things that people are referring to when they use the term 'free will!'

But what "people refer to when they use the term" is common usage.

And yet you say "common usage does not refer to my version of free will".

That's a contradiction

No, it's not a contradiction. I have clearly stated, numerous time, that I don't have a version of free will. As I don't have a version of free will. As I happen to address the given definitions of free will, and common references, there can be no contradiction between those and what I don't actually have!!

You still don't realize that I am arguing against the validity of concept of free will as it is being defined by others?

We've established that your version of free will is not derived from common usage and yet you say it's not you own private usage. So, what is the source of your use then?

Really?

common usage does not refer to my version of 'free will'

Another contradiction.

You are quote mining and taking remarks out of context, playing games.

Here is the full quote:

''Again, as I've said, common usage does not refer to my version of 'free will' or your version of 'free will,' but precisely what it refers to when the reference is being made, in the instance it is made.''

As anyone can see, the remark is meant to convey the fact that any version of free will has nothing to do with me or you, but the people who make the references or support this or that version...none of which is mine.

You are becoming quite disingenuous.

Look, in order for you to reject 'free will' you must have a specific meaning in mind - this is "your" version.

Unbelievable, Just because I point out common usage, references to conscious agency, or formal definitions, compatibalism, libertarianism, etc, doesn't make any of these my definitions.

Are you serious? Have you actually read what you said? I defy anyone to make sense of that 'sentence'.

The sentence is easy enough to understand. It just refers to meaning of a word or words being defined by the context in which they are used. In one context the word 'faith' may mean 'good intentions' (done in good faith) and in another context the word faith may represent a belief held without the support of evidence. Each instance of use determining the meaning in that instance. This is not difficult at all. I shouldn't have to explain the basics.

I'm guessing that you reject the term 'free will' no matter what anyone may mean when they use the term. I'm also guessing that the reason you reject the term is because in your view the word 'free' can only refer to an absence of deterministic causes and the word 'will' can only refer to the specific neurological process of human decision-making (a deterministic system) and, therefore, the word 'free' cannot be used to describe 'will'.

That's right isn't it?

Why do you think the debate on free will is about? Do you think it would have carried on for centuries if the issue could be so easily resolved as saying...''oh, gee, people use the term, people refer to free will, therefore free will is proven, we have free will''

Do you really believe it's so simple?

As simple as saying ''we have free will because we say we do?''

That is what what you appear to be arguing.