In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[DBT]

You don't know this; nobody does.

It is the logical outcome of a random event within a functioning system. Computers have glitches, motors misfire, etc, whenever an extraneous element disrupts the function and work of the system. The brain is a rational system and introducing random events into the system is not likely to be an aid to information processing...which is not a random activity. Random misfiring of neurons is not likely to produce anything rational.

Which is exactly what happens when the system begins to break down.

There are countless clinical examples of brain dysfunction. So we do know what happens when the system breaks down into random firings of neurons...which show that you are making unfounded objections in order to support your belief in 'randomness as a basis of 'free will' - even when it is shown to be wrong.

 

[ryan]

You don't know this; nobody does.

It is the logical outcome of a random event within a functioning system. Computers have glitches, motors misfire, etc, whenever an extraneous element disrupts the function and work of the system. The brain is a rational system and introducing random events into the system is not likely to be an aid to information processing...which is not a random activity. Random misfiring of neurons is not likely to produce anything rational.

Which is exactly what happens when the system begins to break down.

There are countless clinical examples of brain dysfunction. So we do know what happens when the system breaks down into random firings of neurons...which show that you are making unfounded objections in order to support your belief in 'randomness as a basis of 'free will' - even when it is shown to be wrong.

Well that's the whole point. A random misfire is exactly what free will would look like physically. If everything worked the way it is "suppose" to work, I wouldn't even have an argument. But every once and a while, I feel like I am intervening on the universe. It is just a feeling, that might be backed up by physics one day. Until then, who is to say?

 

[The AntiChris]

Of course it doesn't.

Saying that your argument is fallacious is not the same as saying that your conclusion is faulty.

You appear to have little or no understanding of my argument.....

It's not for want of trying.

I'm not ignoring "problems with semantics" - I just have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

It means exactly what I have been saying, word use and common meaning do not prove the reality of the objects they refer to.

Who has claimed they do? I certainly haven't.

This is a common theme in your responses. It's a  straw man.

The claims of libertarian free will and compatibilist free will are very different and cannot be dismissed with a single argument.

I understand your argument against libertarian free will but don't understand your argument against compatibilist free will. What precisely do you think compatibilists are claiming that you think is analogous to claims of "gods and goblins"?

It's the standard argument. Nothing new, nothing different.

Compatibalists redefine the concept of freedom,

In order to justify this claim you have to demonstrate that there is a 'correct' definition of "freedom".

As the dictionary doesn't help us we use the theory that word meaning (definitions) are derived from common usage. You say you do too but not, apparently, in this instance.

How do you arrive at the 'correct' definition of freedom which you claim the compatibilists "redefine"?

...and consequently determinism in order to accommodate their idea of 'free will'

And here you demonstrate your ignorance of compatibilism.

Compatibilists use exactly the same concept of determinism as incompatibilists. In fact many compatibilists say that their concept of freedom and moral responsibility is not only compatible with determinism but requires adequate determinism.

 

[DBT]

It is the logical outcome of a random event within a functioning system. Computers have glitches, motors misfire, etc, whenever an extraneous element disrupts the function and work of the system. The brain is a rational system and introducing random events into the system is not likely to be an aid to information processing...which is not a random activity. Random misfiring of neurons is not likely to produce anything rational.

Which is exactly what happens when the system begins to break down.

There are countless clinical examples of brain dysfunction. So we do know what happens when the system breaks down into random firings of neurons...which show that you are making unfounded objections in order to support your belief in 'randomness as a basis of 'free will' - even when it is shown to be wrong.

Well that's the whole point. A random misfire is exactly what free will would look like physically.

Come on ryan, do you really believe uncontrolled unchosen behaviour is an example of free will!!!! You start trembling uncontrollably....do you honestly believe that this is an example of your so called 'free will?'

The proposition you are asserting is ludicrous.

 

[ryan]

Well that's the whole point. A random misfire is exactly what free will would look like physically.

Come on ryan, do you really believe uncontrolled unchosen behaviour is an example of free will!!!!

Why would you say that it is not controlled or chosen? It is controlled and chosen by the agent. You have to understand this.

You start trembling uncontrollably....do you honestly believe that this is an example of your so called 'free will?'

Uncaused effects are exactly what a free will process would look like.

There is me, and there is much that isn't me. "Me" is also physical. "Me" feels like it has more control over its physicality than all that isn't me. "Me" may not be a puppet to causality. Why can't "me" be an agent of its own free will? It has the physical freedom to have free will, and it certainly has the feeling of agency to have free will. What else can you ask for?

 

[DBT]

You appear to have little or no understanding of my argument.....

It's not for want of trying.

So you say, but the arguments I have given are standard arguments against free will, which I have supported with links, quotes and terms and references. Which any reasonably competent English speaker should readily grasp. I can only assume that you don't want to understand because it goes against your worldview.

Nor is it a single argument. One is related to your objection - 'that's how words are used/semantics' - and another relates to compatibalism, another to the absence of coercion and so on. Easy enough to grasp the basics without any real difficulty.

Who has claimed they do? I certainly haven't.

Sure, you haven't claimed it. You even said that usage does not prove the reality of the objects of reference....but then you appear to imply that references alone may be valid in some instance (which I've given examples of). That is the way it comes across.

And worse, I have asked for examples of what you believe to be instances of free will in relation to 'how the words are used/semantics' but to date there has been no response.

In order to justify this claim you have to demonstrate that there is a 'correct' definition of "freedom".

Are you saying the word freedom can mean whatever you like it mean in order to accommodate determinism? I gave a list of the standard meanings of the word 'free'

Free; a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance
b. Not subject to a given condition.
5. Not subject to external restraint: Unconstrained; unconfined:
*free; unrestrained; having a scope not restricted by qualification <a free variable>
7 a: not obstructed, restricted, or impeded.

Given that freedom is state that is not constrained, restrained, bound or restricted...it is obvious that freedom is incompatible with determinism, where everything is bound or restricted by a system that is determined by antecedent events, which do not permit deviations.

As the dictionary doesn't help us we use the theory that word meaning (definitions) are derived from common usage. You say you do too but not, apparently, in this instance.

Common usage is not always wrong in terms of the things it refers to. People referring to 'the holy spirit' is not the same as common references to freedom. We cannot examine the former, but the latter relates to actual states, but not necessarily to absolute freedom.

A prisoner, for example, being free from his handcuffs (unbound, unrestrained) doesn't mean that he is free from his cell...the prisoner cannot be described as being free because he is free from the constraint of his handcuffs. I've explained this, only to have it ignored and the same objections asserted straight after.

How do you arrive at the 'correct' definition of freedom which you claim the compatibilists "redefine"?

By the commonly agreed meaning of word as it is used in references to states that are not constrained, restrained, bound or restricted...which we can observe in others or experience directly ourselves....all of which are relative to the situation - free from the restraint of this, but not that - a relative condition.

And here you demonstrate your ignorance of compatibilism.

Compatibilists use exactly the same concept of determinism as incompatibilists. In fact many compatibilists say that their concept of freedom and moral responsibility is not only compatible with determinism but requires adequate determinism.

They do use the same definition of determinism (or profess to). But as compatibalism does not work logically, freedom being incompatible with determinism, it being conveniently ignored (apparently) that both the decision made and following action are determined by the state of the system, which consequently does not relate to actual determinism where all events are necessitated by antecedent events and conditions.

Again:
''Notice that a true compatibilist, who has gone on record saying that determinism is a fact of nature, must believe that the events of experiencing a desire, foreseeing the consequences of action, and forming an intention to act on the desire, are all determined. The causal chain leading a human to lift a finger is longer than the chain leading a squirrel to lift an acorn, but it is no less deterministic (he who says that it is less deterministic is not a compatibilist but a closet libertarian).''

Quote;
''Still others, most notably David Hume and some prominent contemporary social psychologists, believe they can have it both ways: accept determinism while also postulating a type of non-libertarian, straight-jacketed “free” will that still enables moral judgment [I put the “free” in quotation marks because the semantics are drained from the word].

More;
''How is this supposed to work? First, we have to accept the view that prior events have caused the person’s current desire to do X. Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes (and perhaps a dash of true chance). Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X. At this point, we should ascribe free will to all animals capable of experiencing desires (e.g., to eat, sleep, or mate). Yet, we don’t; and we tend not to judge non-human animals in moral terms. Exceptions occur, but are swiftly dismissed as errors of anthropomorphism.''

 

[DBT]

Come on ryan, do you really believe uncontrolled unchosen behaviour is an example of free will!!!!

Why would you say that it is not controlled or chosen? It is controlled and chosen by the agent. You have to understand this.

How do you choose to have a random event occur? How do you control random events? Do you understand what the word 'random' means and what randomness entail?

Uncaused effects are exactly what a free will process would look like.

There is me, and there is much that isn't me. "Me" is also physical. "Me" feels like it has more control over its physicality than all that isn't me. "Me" may not be a puppet to causality. Why can't "me" be an agent of its own free will? It has the physical freedom to have free will, and it certainly has the feeling of agency to have free will. What else can you ask for?

Meaningless. You are just making assertions that are based on flawed ideas about the nature of randomness. Given what you are saying, everything must have free will, trees, weeds, worms, microbes...because random events are effecting their physical makeup. A tree is as much a subject of random events (not being common on macro scale) as is the human brain, and neither have control of when they occur or how random events are expressed within the system.

 

[The AntiChris]

In order to justify this claim you have to demonstrate that there is a 'correct' definition of "freedom".

Are you saying the word freedom can mean whatever you like it mean in order to accommodate determinism?

But universal usage of the word "freedom" accommodates adequate determinism. When competent English speakers use the word "freedom" they're not (unless they're incompatibilists talking about free will) talking about absence of deterministic causality.

I gave a list of the standard meanings of the word 'free'

Free; a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance
b. Not subject to a given condition.
5. Not subject to external restraint: Unconstrained; unconfined:
*free; unrestrained; having a scope not restricted by qualification <a free variable>
7 a: not obstructed, restricted, or impeded.

Given that freedom is state that is not constrained, restrained, bound or restricted...it is obvious that freedom is incompatible with determinism, where everything is bound or restricted by a system that is determined by antecedent events, which do not permit deviations.

Assuming you agree with me that we live in an adequately determined universe (i.e. you're not saying that human neurology is the only instance of adequate determinism in our universe), then it follows from your argument that all uses of the words "free" and "freedom" (not just in the context of free will) are mistaken.

Is this what you're saying? That all use of the words "free" and "freedom" should be expunged from our adequately determined universe?

 

[Speakpigeon]

You probably all know that but it might be worth noting at this juncture that it has been mainstream for some time now for physicists to talk of freedom in relation to at least some actions of some human beings in some specific circumstances. I'm not sure how to interpret this exactly but it seems to show that some scientists are much more relax about the concept of freedom that one would be led to believe reading this thread.
EB

 

[Juma]

You probably all know that but it might be worth noting at this juncture that it has been mainstream for some time now for physicists to talk of freedom in relation to at least some actions of some human beings in some specific circumstances. I'm not sure how to interpret this exactly but it seems to show that some scientists are much more relax about the concept of freedom that one would be led to believe reading this thread.
EB

And can you please give some references to this ludicrous statement? Remeber that there are scientist researching totally moronic things as homopathy and panormality.

 

[PyramidHead]

You probably all know that but it might be worth noting at this juncture that it has been mainstream for some time now for physicists to talk of freedom in relation to at least some actions of some human beings in some specific circumstances. I'm not sure how to interpret this exactly but it seems to show that some scientists are much more relax about the concept of freedom that one would be led to believe reading this thread.
EB

And can you please give some references to this ludicrous statement? Remeber that there are scientist researching totally moronic things as homopathy and panormality.

I took it as sarcasm. If that's how it was intended, I share the sentiment. Believe it or not, leading experts are not 100% opposed to the idea that people make choices that we can meaningfully attribute to them, and hold them responsible for. Scary thought, I know, but there you have it.

 

[ryan]

Why would you say that it is not controlled or chosen? It is controlled and chosen by the agent. You have to understand this.

How do you choose to have a random event occur? How do you control random events? Do you understand what the word 'random' means and what randomness entail?

I am the event. I am the particles. It is random to outside observers.

Uncaused effects are exactly what a free will process would look like.

There is me, and there is much that isn't me. "Me" is also physical. "Me" feels like it has more control over its physicality than all that isn't me. "Me" may not be a puppet to causality. Why can't "me" be an agent of its own free will? It has the physical freedom to have free will, and it certainly has the feeling of agency to have free will. What else can you ask for?

Meaningless. You are just making assertions that are based on flawed ideas about the nature of randomness. Given what you are saying, everything must have free will, trees, weeds, worms, microbes...because random events are effecting their physical makeup. A tree is as much a subject of random events (not being common on macro scale) as is the human brain, and neither have control of when they occur or how random events are expressed within the system.

Again, think of it as relative randomness, relative to observers observing the agent.

 

[PyramidHead]

How do you choose to have a random event occur? How do you control random events? Do you understand what the word 'random' means and what randomness entail?

I am the event. I am the particles. It is random to outside observers.

I already explained why this is an example of faulty reasoning: my house is made up of atoms that have no color whatsoever, but that doesn't mean my house has no color whatsoever. You are made of particles that behave unpredictably, but that doesn't mean you behave unpredictably (and it certainly doesn't mean you can control the unpredictable particles). You have been making this elementary fallacy of composition/division for quite a while now, and it's really getting hard to take you seriously.

 

[Kharakov]

I took it as sarcasm. If that's how it was intended, I share the sentiment. Believe it or not, leading experts are not 100% opposed to the idea that people make choices that we can meaningfully attribute to them, and hold them responsible for. Scary thought, I know, but there you have it.

Neither social science, criminology, or psychology are above the whole idea of the freedom of the individual to make choices.

In this case, the hereditary inclinations and/or experiences of the individual which determine the choice are important to isolate, so as to prevent certain choices from being made in the future. In the case of recidivists with decidedly antisocial behaviors of the kind that have negative impact on society as a whole (criminals), we generally have little choice but to lock them up and hope they understand, at some point, why they are locked away.


Recognizing individual patterns of behavior, despite the fact that those patterns of behavior are shaped by things out of the individual's control, is important when one is building a good society.

 

[ryan]

I am the event. I am the particles. It is random to outside observers.

I already explained why this is an example of faulty reasoning: my house is made up of atoms that have no color whatsoever, but that doesn't mean my house has no color whatsoever.

First of all, your house has color because each atom has color. Secondly, my argument assumes, with some supporting evidence, that the neurological processes intermittently behave randomly to other observers.

You have been making this elementary fallacy of composition/division for quite a while now, and it's really getting hard to take you seriously.

You can't take me seriously because you, like almost everyone else in this forum, have no respect for other people. Many on here have huge heads, and are not willing to learn anything, or at least won't admit it.

Everyone thinks they are special because in their world they are usually the smartest person in the room. But the reality is that being the smartest in most rooms only makes you average here. You aren't playing with normal people, so look very closely at each argument before discounting it.

You are made of particles that behave unpredictably, but that doesn't mean you behave unpredictably (and it certainly doesn't mean you can control the unpredictable particles).

Right, and that's how we have classical mechanics. The result of the randomness in the case of this universe is typically not random as scales get larger.

But this predictable nature of the randomness eventually breaks down as processes become smaller and interactions increase. The randomness will rear its head as the "fuzzy" edges of these microscopic processes interact more and more.

Classical mechanics is just the result of a fundamentally random world. The randomness gives rise to CM. The randomness will always get in the way.

 

[PyramidHead]

I already explained why this is an example of faulty reasoning: my house is made up of atoms that have no color whatsoever, but that doesn't mean my house has no color whatsoever.

First of all, your house has color because each atom has color.

Technically you might be correct, but it's easy enough to think of a property an atom doesn't have, like a great singing voice, which something made of atoms (like Aretha Franklin) does have, and vice versa. My point was that you cannot conclude from the randomness of your constituents that you are random.

Secondly, my argument assumes, with some supporting evidence, that the neurological processes intermittently behave randomly to other observers.

Which may be one feature of free actions, but it is not the only one, which is what you imply by singling it out so much. Free actions must also take place in an environment that can support life, but the fact that an event takes place in an environment that supports life doesn't tell you it was a free action.

You can't take me seriously because you, like almost everyone else in this forum, have no respect for other people. Many on here have huge heads, and are not willing to learn anything, or at least won't admit it.

Everyone thinks they are special because in their world they are usually the smartest person in the room. But the reality is that being the smartest in most rooms only makes you average here. You aren't playing with normal people, so look very closely at each argument before discounting it.

Feel better now? Take all the time you need. When you calm down apologize for the personal comment, I will address the rest of your post.

 

[ryan]

Secondly, my argument assumes, with some supporting evidence, that the neurological processes intermittently behave randomly to other observers.

Which may be one feature of free actions, but it is not the only one, which is what you imply by singling it out so much.

No, if I were implying it, I would say that randomness implies free will, which is something that I have never said. I am saying that apparent randomness leaves free will only as a possibility. I am attacking the certainty that free will does not exist.

You can't take me seriously because you, like almost everyone else in this forum, have no respect for other people. Many on here have huge heads, and are not willing to learn anything, or at least won't admit it.

Everyone thinks they are special because in their world they are usually the smartest person in the room. But the reality is that being the smartest in most rooms only makes you average here. You aren't playing with normal people, so look very closely at each argument before discounting it.

Feel better now? Take all the time you need. When you calm down apologize for the personal comment, I will address the rest of your post.

You are reaffirming what I said about big heads.

From a long leave, you come out of nowhere and say that you can't take me seriously. Then, you misunderstand my whole argument - whether you know it or not. Exactly how do you think I should feel from my perspective?

Stop assuming everyone is stupid but you, and spend more time understanding the argument.

 

[fromderinside]

I am saying that apparent randomness leaves free will only as a possibility. I am attacking the certainty that free will does not exist.

Please set up a silly gysm that rationally concludes randomness subjects the statement "certainty that free will does not exist" to logical peril.

 

[DBT]

Are you saying the word freedom can mean whatever you like it mean in order to accommodate determinism?

But universal usage of the word "freedom" accommodates adequate determinism. When competent English speakers use the word "freedom" they're not (unless they're incompatibilists talking about free will) talking about absence of deterministic causality.

The word freedom within a deterministic system relates to conditions within that system, the cog is spinning freely, the dog is free from its chain, the prisoner is free from his handcuffs....but this usage and reference is related to specific states of the system and not the system as a whole where all events are shaped and formed by antecedent events and conditions: determined.

So, as I've pointed out, the dog may be said to be free from the constraints of the chain, but it is not free from the constraints of the confines of the yard: the dog is not free. The prisoner is indeed free from the constraints of his handcuffs, but is not free from the constraints of his cell, or if freed from his cell, he is not free from the constraints of the prison: the prisoner is not free....and so on, words being object related - the chain, the handcuffs, the prison.

Applying this to coercion, someone may be free from coercion but this reference to freedom is to a specific condition:external pressure being placed on the normal decision making process: specific reference, as with the chain, the cuffs or the yard, and says nothing about the state of will, whether it is 'free' or not. It says nothing about the production of will, nothing about human behaviour, thought or action. It's just a specific condition within the system, and not a description or a definition of the system itself.

Assuming you agree with me that we live in an adequately determined universe (i.e. you're not saying that human neurology is the only instance of adequate determinism in our universe), then it follows from your argument that all uses of the words "free" and "freedom" (not just in the context of free will) are mistaken.

That's not what I'm saying. I said that our references to freedom are related to specific conditions within our adequately determined system, handcuffs off rather the opposite, the constraint of being handcuffed, the dog being free from the constraint of its chain in contrast to being chained...none of which describes or defines the system as a whole, where events are determined, whether classical physics or quantum probability (being an unchosen condition).

Is this what you're saying? That all use of the words "free" and "freedom" should be expunged from our adequately determined universe?

I don't know how you could ask that question, given that I have explained the use and meaning of the words numerous times...the dog is indeed free from its chain, but it is not free from the constraint of closed yard, etc, etc. We may be said to be free from coercion, but we are not free from the constraints of the condition and state of the system that shapes and forms us, generates awareness, self awareness, self identity perception of the external world and related thoughts and feelings. In this instance, the overall condition and state of the brain.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You probably all know that but it might be worth noting at this juncture that it has been mainstream for some time now for physicists to talk of freedom in relation to at least some actions of some human beings in some specific circumstances. I'm not sure how to interpret this exactly but it seems to show that some scientists are much more relax about the concept of freedom that one would be led to believe reading this thread.
EB

And can you please give some references to this ludicrous statement? Remeber that there are scientist researching totally moronic things as homopathy and panormality.

I took it as sarcasm. If that's how it was intended, I share the sentiment. Believe it or not, leading experts are not 100% opposed to the idea that people make choices that we can meaningfully attribute to them, and hold them responsible for. Scary thought, I know, but there you have it.

Me I don't see how it could possibly be read as a sarcasm.

Also, I said, "it has been mainstream". So obviously I wasn't talking about just a few leading experts. Sometimes I wonder why I bother speaking in English at all.

Anyway, it's a moot point since I'm very unsure what they mean with the word "free" in this case. If I knew maybe I could afford to be sarcastic. Scientists generally often use words in a peculiar way, like this (very bright) guy who wrote a book about something coming out of nothing. Clearly, we don't share the same concept of nothingness. But in this case I just don't know.
EB