In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[Speakpigeon]

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.

All very true but the hardcore materialists here will just dismiss "social science, criminology, or psychology" as being somewhat pre-scientific. In the case I'm referring to, the scientists concerned are physicists (fundamental physics) and the language they use is really mainstream. I accept I don't understand their use of the word but I only have really really minimal doubts in what I said in my post.
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.

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

Ok... If it wasnt sarkasm then you might explain what you are talking about.

 

[The AntiChris]

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:

Yup. That's compatibilism.

It's just a specific condition within the system, and not a description or a definition of the system itself.

Compatibilists aren't defining or describing a "system itself" (I'm not sure libertarians are either).

Where did you get the idea that the term 'free will' must describe or define a "system itself"?

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.

This is dumb reasoning. The exact same reasoning can be used to reject the use of every possible usage of the word "free".

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ok... If it wasnt sarkasm then you might explain what you are talking about.

Oh, you mean this "ludicrous statement"? Why would you now need any explanation at all? You seemed to have it all figured out just yesterday! What a day can do!

Further, as I said, it's plain mainstream. I thought you were at least scientifically literate. I'm sure you should know better than me what I'm talking about. Can't you just find it by yourself, like, in your memory?

And I do shuffle my many papers here all I can but seems I can't find anything and it's doing no good to my blood pressure I can tell you.
EB

 

[Juma]

Ok... If it wasnt sarkasm then you might explain what you are talking about.

Oh, you mean this "ludicrous statement"? Why would you now need any explanation at all? You seemed to have it all figured out just yesterday! What a day can do!

Further, as I said, it's plain mainstream. I thought you were at least scientifically literate. I'm sure you should know better than me what I'm talking about. Can't you just find it by yourself, like, in your memory?

And I do shuffle my many papers here all I can but seems I can't find anything and it's doing no good to my blood pressure I can tell you.
EB

Oh stop the act and start explaining what tou ment.
There is no mainstream scientific support for libertarian free will. And since the post was not sarcastic you obviously didnt mean common sense free will. So what did you mean?

 

[Kharakov]

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.

All very true but the hardcore materialists here will just dismiss "social science, criminology, or psychology" as being somewhat pre-scientific. In the case I'm referring to, the scientists concerned are physicists (fundamental physics) and the language they use is really mainstream. I accept I don't understand their use of the word but I only have really really minimal doubts in what I said in my post.
EB

Ehh... I'm sure ryan would like an excuse to commit a crime:


Quick question: does everyone else get the same SMBC comic order as I do (this one is #3765)? I've often wondered if the comic order is tailored to the individual.

 

[DBT]

Yup. That's compatibilism.

And the reason why compatibalism is a failed argument, the reason why it's an absurd claim for free will, and why compatibilists are Libertarians, whether they realize it or not.

It's just a specific condition within the system, and not a description or a definition of the system itself.

Compatibilists aren't defining or describing a "system itself" (I'm not sure libertarians are either).

Where did you get the idea that the term 'free will' must describe or define a "system itself"?

You mean the nature of the system that produces will. If will is indeed free, this state of freedom must logically relate to the producer of will; the brain.

If you talk about the ability to walk, the ability to walk must relate to the means of the ability to walk: functional legs and feet attached to central nervous system and a brain...without which, there is no ability to walk.

Just as when we refer to 'the dog has been freed from the chain' the reference 'free' or 'freedom' relates to the state of the dog in relation to its chain, or to the relationship of the dog to its yard, etc.

Words, terms and references normally relate to something, an object, an idea, a belief, a concept, etc. What we refer to as [human] 'will' is related to its status: the question of 'freedom' of will in relation to the means and mechanism of the production and generation of human will. It's not magical freedom.

Nor can you define it into existence semantically;

A definition or an ontological argument alone proves nothing.

1)God is love.
2)Love can be experienced.
3)Love exists.
4)God exists.

The common definition of free will is equally meaningless:

1)Free will is the ability to make conscious decisions.
2)Conscious decision making can be experienced.
3)Conscious decision making exists.
4) Free will exists.

There is no given reason to define or conflate Love with God. Love is love, nothing more and nothing less.

Just as there is no given reason to define conscious decision making as ''free will'' - conscious decision making requires nothing additional, it is a function of neural activity, nothing more and nothing less.
Being free from coercion is 'freedom from coercion' and not 'freedom of will' because will exists independently from coercion and has its own features and attributes, which are shaped and form by neural information processing.

The absence of coercion is no more an instance of 'free will' than is the addict a 'free man' because his handcuffs were removed when he was locked in a cell. He is still a prisoner regardless of being freed from his handcuffs, and when he is freed from his cell, he is still bound by his addiction, and if he manages to get help to free himself from his addiction, his will is still determined by brain information state, just like the rest of us.

This is dumb reasoning. The exact same reasoning can be used to reject the use of every possible usage of the word "free".

No it's not. And I've already explained in detail why it isn't with practical examples and descriptions of usage....which of course you completely ignore in favour of your own flawed interpretation and unfounded objections and proclamations.

 

[DBT]

As freedom of action has been brought up again, I have to point out that an action freely performed follows the cause that initiated that action, thought and response, but this ability is not necessarily a matter of 'free will'

The distinction between so called 'free will' (which is simply 'will' or volition) and the ability to act 'freely' was made a long time ago.

 

[Juma]

And the reason why compatibalism is a failed argument, the reason why it's an absurd claim for free will, and why compatibilists are Libertarians, whether they realize it or not.

How fucking dense can you be?
1) compatibilism is not an argument. Its a definition.
2) compatibilism has nothing whatsoverer to do with libertarian free will.

All that compatibilists say that there is a meningful usage of the words "free will".

Libertarian free will is a METAPHYSICAL standpoint for godssake! They beleive actually say something of the human mind. A completely different matter altogether!

Compatibilists is like people that thinks that it is ok to say that the sun sets since it describes what it looks like, since it a useful concept. And since it is not to be talen liteally it is compatible with the fact that the earth moves around the sun.

Libertarians is like people who think "sun sets" should be taken literally: that the sun moves and earth stands still.

Got it?

 

[The AntiChris]

And the reason why compatibalism is a failed argument, the reason why it's an absurd claim for free will, and why compatibilists are Libertarians, whether they realize it or not.

Here you reveal your total ignorance of compatibilism.

Despite crusading enthusiastically against any and all forms of 'free will' for, as far as I can tell, at least 10 years (I'm including stuff on FRDB) you still don't understand the difference between the claims of incompatibilists and compatibilists.

In a 2009 survey of professional philosophers, 59% of those who responded "Accept or lean toward: compatibilism" so there's no excuse for your ignorance - it's not as though it's a minority position within academic philosophy.

In any event this explains why your arguments against compatibilism make no sense (and have never made sense).

 

[ryan]

Compatibilism doesn't seem to make any sense to me either.

If determinism is true, we can imagine ourselves as being a 4 dimensional object that simply exists. With no extra dimension of time, except for the one we have, our bodies have always existed statically and always will. They don't choose or change in any way.

The universe would be like a 4 dimensional portrait with an eternal existence.

 

[Juma]

In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

Compatibilism doesn't seem to make any sense to me either.

If determinism is true, we can imagine ourselves as being a 4 dimensional object that simply exists. With no extra dimension of time, except for the one we have, our bodies have always existed statically and always will. They don't choose or change in any way.

The universe would be like a 4 dimensional portrait with an eternal existence.

Then it is not compatibilism that you have a problem with, it is determinism.

 

[ryan]

Compatibilism doesn't seem to make any sense to me either.

If determinism is true, we can imagine ourselves as being a 4 dimensional object that simply exists. With no extra dimension of time, except for the one we have, our bodies have always existed statically and always will. They don't choose or change in any way.

The universe would be like a 4 dimensional portrait with an eternal existence.

Then it is not compatibilism that you have a problem with, it is determinism.

No, I simply explained what determinism looks like, which seems to be the more popular view of determinism in cosmology. In this view, there are no choices, just eternally static objects.

 

[fromderinside]

Then it is not compatibilism that you have a problem with, it is determinism.

No, I simply explained what determinism looks like, which seems to be the more popular view of determinism in cosmology. In this view, there are no choices, just eternally static objects.

Testing your random statement generator again?

 

[DBT]

And the reason why compatibalism is a failed argument, the reason why it's an absurd claim for free will, and why compatibilists are Libertarians, whether they realize it or not.

How fucking dense can you be?
1) compatibilism is not an argument. Its a definition.
2) compatibilism has nothing whatsoverer to do with libertarian free will.

Maybe it is you who is not only dense (keep in mind who started this), but rude and ignorant ?

Which appears to be the case:

Compatibilism
Compatibilists argue that determinism is compatible with human freedom, and that indeterminism is not compatible or at best incoherent. They feel (correctly) that there must be a deterministic or causal connection between our will and our actions. This allows us to take responsibility for our actions, including credit for the good and blame for the bad.''

This is not only a definition, Juma, it is an argument. An argument that fails for the reasons I've given numerous times.

If you can't read, understand or follow what has been said, you should politely ask for clarification instead of shooting off blindly with ad homs.

All that compatibilists say that there is a meningful usage of the words "free will".

Of course they say it, and they give descriptions and an argument for what they say....but that is a statement, definition and an argument that incompatibilists refute....in case you didn't know.

The incompatibilist position being that freedom is incompatible with determinism...just in case you didn't realize. Which, judging by your emotional outburst, you don't appear to realize.

 

[DBT]

And the reason why compatibalism is a failed argument, the reason why it's an absurd claim for free will, and why compatibilists are Libertarians, whether they realize it or not.

Here you reveal your total ignorance of compatibilism.

No, it's you who reveal your total ignorance of the implications of the compatibilist position in relation to determinism....and what's worse, completely ignore arguments that demonstrate incompatibility.

Despite crusading enthusiastically against any and all forms of 'free will' for, as far as I can tell, at least 10 years (I'm including stuff on FRDB) you still don't understand the difference between the claims of incompatibilists and compatibilists.

I am no more crusading against 'free will' than any other poster is 'crusading' for their own position, you included. It is a contentious subject and there are some who argue for the affirmative and others who argue for the negative. No big deal, one or two posts a day. Who really cares. What surprises me is the vehemence of some of those who argue for free will...as if it is vital ideology.

In a 2009 survey of professional philosophers, 59% of those who responded "Accept or lean toward: compatibilism" so there's no excuse for your ignorance - it's not as though it's a minority position within academic philosophy.

In any event this explains why your arguments against compatibilism make no sense (and have never made sense).

Oh, no..you are .not indulging in the ad populum fallacy? Surely not? Yet there it is! Add that to your unfounded proclamations and flawed interpretations of what I said and provided, including ignoring key points and quotes and links to articles posted to support what I say.

Again:

Determinism is a claim about the laws of nature: very roughly, it is the claim that everything that happens is determined by antecedent conditions together with the natural laws. Incompatibilism is a philosophical thesis about the relevance of determinism to free will: that the truth of determinism rules out the existence of free will. The incompatibilist believes that if determinism turned out to be true, it would also be true that we don't have, and have never had, free will. The compatibilist denies that determinism has the consequences the incompatibilist thinks it has. According to the compatibilist, the truth of determinism does not preclude the existence of free will. (Even if we learned tomorrow that determinism is true, it might still be true that we have free will.) The philosophical problem of free will and determinism is the problem of understanding, how, if at all, the truth of determinism might be compatible with the truth of our belief that we have free will. That is, it's the problem of deciding who is right: the compatibilist or the incompatibilist.''

Now, if you have been paying attention (which I doubt), you would already know that I incorporate quantum indeterminism, or probabilistic events as a description of the World as it is, but that QM no more allows free will than does Hard Determinism.

An example of the sheer messiness of the subject matter:

''Nevertheless, the typical argument of determinists and compatibilists is that if our actions had random causes we could not be morally responsible.
To avoid the obvious difficulty for their position, most compatibilist philosophers simply deny the reality of chance. They hope that something will be found to be wrong with quantum mechanical indeterminism. Chance is unintelligible, they say, and thus there is no intelligible account of libertarian free will. Some dismiss free will (as many philosophers denied chance) as an illusion.
Recently, professional philosophers specializing in free will and moral responsibility have staked out nuanced versions of the familiar positions with new jargon, like broad and narrow incompatibilism, semicompatibilism, hard incompatibilism, and illusionism.
Awkwardly, the incompatibilist position includes both "hard" determinists, who deny free will, and libertarians, who deny determinism, making the category very messy. ''

And one of the reasons why I argue that term 'free will' is irrelevant as description of an actual attribute of human consciousness, and is nothing more than a semantic construct that is commonly used in reference 'conscious choice' or an absence of coercion, etc, but says nothing about the nature of volition.

In other words, the term 'free will' is largely irrelevant.

Which is what I argue.

 

[The AntiChris]

In a 2009 survey of professional philosophers, 59% of those who responded "Accept or lean toward: compatibilism" so there's no excuse for your ignorance - it's not as though it's a minority position within academic philosophy.

In any event this explains why your arguments against compatibilism make no sense (and have never made sense).

Oh, no..you are .not indulging in the ad populum fallacy? Surely not?

No, I'm not making an argument for compatibilism (do you know how many times I've had to point this out to you?). I'm simply pointing out the fact that you really have no excuse for your ignorance. Given the length of time of time you've been vehemently anti-compatibilist one would have thought you might have taken the trouble to attempt some understanding of what you're arguing against.

Which is what I argue.

What you argue makes no sense because you simply don't understand what you're arguing against.

You clearly believe compatibilism entails libertarian free will ("compatibilists are Libertarians, whether they realize it or not"). You're literally clueless.

______________________________________________

I'm not suggesting there are no coherent arguments that could be made against compatibilism, just that in order to make such arguments one needs to actually understand what one is talking about.

 

[Juma]

How fucking dense can you be?
1) compatibilism is not an argument. Its a definition.
2) compatibilism has nothing whatsoverer to do with libertarian free will.

Maybe it is you who is not only dense (keep in mind who started this), but rude and ignorant ?

Which appears to be the case:

Compatibilism
Compatibilists argue that determinism is compatible with human freedom, and that indeterminism is not compatible or at best incoherent. They feel (correctly) that there must be a deterministic or causal connection between our will and our actions. This allows us to take responsibility for our actions, including credit for the good and blame for the bad.''

This is not only a definition, Juma, it is an argument. An argument that fails for the reasons I've given numerous times.

If you can't read, understand or follow what has been said, you should politely ask for clarification instead of shooting off blindly with ad homs.

All that compatibilists say that there is a meningful usage of the words "free will".

Of course they say it, and they give descriptions and an argument for what they say....but that is a statement, definition and an argument that incompatibilists refute....in case you didn't know.

The incompatibilist position being that freedom is incompatible with determinism...just in case you didn't realize. Which, judging by your emotional outburst, you don't appear to realize.

Compatibilistic free will and libertarian free will are not opposite views on the same thing. They are different things. As in apples and oranges.

My example with sunset is spot on. Read it agsin.

You are like Don Quixote: fighting your own delusions.

 

[Kharakov]

I'd like someone to describe how their will, formed by their experiences, is not determined by their experiences?

The exercise of free will would always have to be to do something illogical, because if you decide something for pragmatic or logical reasons, it was determined...

 

[fromderinside]

I'd like someone to describe how their will, formed by their experiences, is not determined by their experiences?

The exercise of free will would always have to be to do something illogical, because if you decide something for pragmatic or logical reasons, it was determined...

]

No awareness before early vertebrates yet we evolved. That is not a scenario where free will is supported. Reactive beings in a reactive world we are and will forever be indeterminacy not withstanding .... and other soporifics all about as meaningful as will free or no.

Gad we're such egocentric things.