In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[ryan]

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

Why does free will have to be formed by past 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...

Maybe someone has the freedom to make a pragmatic choice over a choice that isn't pragmatic.

 

[bilby]

Gad we're such egocentric things.

I'm not.

That's what makes me so much better than everyone else.

 

[fromderinside]

Maybe wishing wells were meant to be.

 

[DBT]

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.

They are not my delusions. You should read more carefully and don't make false assumptions. If you are not clear on what I'm arguing, or saying, you only need to ask for clarification. Get off your high horse and develop some basic courtesy.

 

[DBT]

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?).

But you have never given an argument for compatibalism that I am aware of. Or an argument for the validity of common usage - ''that is how words are used''

You do make assertions, but you do not support your assertions with reasoned arguments or evidence. I have repeatedly asked you to provide an argument for your assertions, to give at least one example, but you have ignored every request.

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.

The ignorance is not mine. I have provided descriptions of the failure of compatibalism, provided links, quotes that support my descriptions. All Oof which are clear and concise reasons why compatibalism is a failed argument, why freedom is incompatible with determinism...only to have all of this brushed aside or ignored. And more assertions made 'bad argument' 'ignorance' blah, blah, but nothing worthwhile of your own to offer.

And you talk about ignorance.

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

You see, you are either not reading everything that I've said, or you have a serious problem with comprehension.

If you had been paying attention you'd know that what I said was a reference to the article I posted....which you appear to have ignored.

Here it is again, please pay attention:

''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).''


The implication being, that some compatibalists tend to discount the fact that will formation inseparable to its related action, and ''he who says that it is less deterministic is not a compatibilist but a closet libertarian.''

Moreover:

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].''


Don't take remarks out of context in order to misrepresent what I say. It's extremely poor form.

My remark is related to the contention that some, if not most, compatibalists want it both ways, ie, ''accept determinism while also postulating a type of non-libertarian, straight-jacketed “free” will that still enables moral judgment'' - this being an example of lip service to determinism, denying libertarianism, but nevertheless holding a position that is quasi libertarian (whether that is realized or not).

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.

How would you know? You appear to be reading a bit here, a bit there, not putting it together, taking remarks out of context and misrepresenting what I say.

 

[DBT]

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...

That appears to be the essence of the problem, and the evidence from neuroscience is mounting against conscious agency:

Abstract
''The foundation of modern neuroscience and psychology about intention for action was laid by B. Libet et al. [(1983) Brain106, 623–642]. They reported the time of awareness of wanting to move to be about 0.2 s before voluntary movement onset. However, despite repeated confirmation of the result, their method has been criticised for its dependence on self-reported timing and subjective memory, and the interpretation has been widely debated without general consensus. Here, we show that the mean time of the conscious intention to move was 1.42 s before movement, estimated based on the subject’s real-time decision of whether or not there was a thought to move when a tone occurred. This event is after the onset of the bereitschaftspotential, an electroencephalographic activity preceding voluntary movement, but about 1 s earlier than the timing of intention reported previously based on the subject’s recall. Our result solves some problems of the conventional method, thus giving a clearer answer to the controversies. The difference between the conventional result and our result suggests that the perception of intention rises through multiple levels of awareness, starting just after the brain initiates movement.''

 

[The AntiChris]

No, I'm not making an argument for compatibilism (do you know how many times I've had to point this out to you?).

But you have never given an argument for compatibalism that I am aware of.

Of course not. I'm not arguing for compatibilism.

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

You see, you are either not reading everything that I've said, or you have a serious problem with comprehension.

These were your words at the beginning of post #887 quoted verbatim.

Are you now saying they don't represent your views?

Are you withdrawing that comment?

 

[DBT]

Examples of criticisms of compatibalism that have been made in the past:

''Compatibilists are sometimes called "soft determinists" pejoratively (William James' term). James accused them of creating a "quagmire of evasion" by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism.[8] Immanuel Kant called it a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery."[9] Kant's argument turns on the view that, while all empirical phenomena must result from determining causes, human thought introduces something seemingly not found elsewhere in nature - the ability to conceive of the world in terms of how it ought to be, or how it might otherwise be.''

Which is much the same as what I've been saying, ''word jugglery'' "quagmire of evasion" "wretched subterfuge" - Look at the mess:

''Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires.

Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free. Compatabilism does not hold that humans have free will.

Compatibilism holds that:

1) the thesis of determinism is true, and that accordingly all human behavior, voluntary or involuntary, like the behavior of all other things, arises from antecedent conditions, given which no other behavior is possible: all human behavior is caused and determined

2)voluntary behavior is nonetheless free to the extent that it is not externally constrained or impeded

3) the causes of voluntary behavior are certain states, events, or conditions within the agent: acts of will or volitions, choices, decisions, desires etc...

Compatibilism is NOT a position that combines the libertarian and determinist positions.

Compatibilismis NOT a compromise of the two other positions.

Compatibilism is NOT a position that holds that humans are "a little bit" free.

Compatibilism is NOT a position that holds that humans have "limited free will".

Compatibilism is NOT a position that holds that humans have some free will.

Compatibilism is determinism with a slight modification for the sake of appearances and for our language use. It is a position taken because of the perceived need to have some idea of accountability or responsibility for human behavior. ''

Word ''jugglery'' indeed!

 

[DBT]

But you have never given an argument for compatibalism that I am aware of.

Of course not. I'm not arguing for compatibilism.

You position is vague, you appear to be arguing for word usage, common usage, that is how words are used, and that in some instances there may be valid references to free will, and given that you accept adequate determinism, you appear to imply that there may indeed be compatibility (in some instance). But you have not openly asserted that.

These were your words at the beginning of post #887 quoted verbatim.

Are you now saying they don't represent your views?

Are you withdrawing that comment?

Did you not see the references that I gave for my comment? Did you not see the context of my remark, and why I made the comment. My explanation is right there in post #905!!!!

Un-freaking believable.

 

[Juma]

Examples of criticisms of compatibalism that have been made in the past:

''Compatibilists are sometimes called "soft determinists" pejoratively (William James' term). James accused them of creating a "quagmire of evasion" by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism.[8] Immanuel Kant called it a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery."[9] Kant's argument turns on the view that, while all empirical phenomena must result from determining causes, human thought introduces something seemingly not found elsewhere in nature - the ability to conceive of the world in terms of how it ought to be, or how it might otherwise be.''

Which is much the same as what I've been saying, ''word jugglery'' "quagmire of evasion" "wretched subterfuge" - Look at the mess:

''Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires.

Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free. Compatabilism does not hold that humans have free will.

Compatibilism holds that:

1) the thesis of determinism is true, and that accordingly all human behavior, voluntary or involuntary, like the behavior of all other things, arises from antecedent conditions, given which no other behavior is possible: all human behavior is caused and determined

2)voluntary behavior is nonetheless free to the extent that it is not externally constrained or impeded

3) the causes of voluntary behavior are certain states, events, or conditions within the agent: acts of will or volitions, choices, decisions, desires etc...

Compatibilism is NOT a position that combines the libertarian and determinist positions.

Compatibilismis NOT a compromise of the two other positions.

Compatibilism is NOT a position that holds that humans are "a little bit" free.

Compatibilism is NOT a position that holds that humans have "limited free will".

Compatibilism is NOT a position that holds that humans have some free will.

Compatibilism is determinism with a slight modification for the sake of appearances and for our language use. It is a position taken because of the perceived need to have some idea of accountability or responsibility for human behavior. ''

Word ''jugglery'' indeed!

It is bloody obvious that compatibilism is not a position that holds that humans have libertarian free will!

 

[The AntiChris]

These were your words at the beginning of post #887 quoted verbatim.

Are you now saying they don't represent your views?

Are you withdrawing that comment?

Did you not see the references that I gave for my comment?

Sure. You were parroting a religious libertarian's views (you clearly were not presenting the words as someone else's view in post #887)

Do they represent your views?

Are you withdrawing that comment?

No more evasion please.

 

[DBT]

Did you not see the references that I gave for my comment?

Sure. You were parroting a religious libertarian's views (you clearly were not presenting the words as someone else's view in post #887)

Do they represent your views?

Are you withdrawing that comment?

No more evasion please.

What evasion? I gave my references, which you simply brush aside as 'parroting' - nor was I ''parroting a religious libertarian's views'' - the article is pointing out the problems with various 'interpretations' of compatibilism - and was certainly not written by a ''religious libertarian'' Are you skimming over the articles? More like a typical snide remark.


The implication being, that some compatibilists tend to discount the fact that will formation inseparable to its related action, and ''he who says that it is less deterministic is not a compatibilist but a closet libertarian.''

While - ''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''

That former was the reference of my remark, and the compatibilist position the remark was related to.

An example of the mess that is 'compatibilism' -

http://philpapers.org/browse/compatibilism]''Compatibilist views of free will [/url]hold that free will is compatible with causal determinism. Classical compatibilists argued that determinism does not entail that agents lack alternative possibilities. They often advanced conditional accounts of alternatives (eg, the agent can do otherwise if, were she to want to do otherwise, she would). In more recent times, compatibilists have often denied that we need a power to do otherwise for freedom. Most contemporary compatibilists hold that free will is compatible with but does not require determinism. So-called Hobartian compatibilists hold that determinism is required for free will.''

 

[Togo]

I'm finding it interesting that DBT is running into exactly the same criticism from other people that I've been making for the last few years.

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...

It was? How do you figure?

 

[Juma]

I'm finding it interesting that DBT is running into exactly the same criticism from other people that I've been making for the last few years.

Really? When? Where?

 

[fromderinside]

Archives, almost since I joined this neat little distraction forum. We're both share a deterministic perspective fighting the good fight with some pretty substantial differences which crop up because of our training. Most of the discussions have been educational for me. It seems DBT has dropped into a bit more personal approach lately which I see as regrettable. Togo and I differ philosophically but we share similar training so our discussions are more neurosciency.

 

[DBT]

I'm finding it interesting that DBT is running into exactly the same criticism from other people that I've been making for the last few years.

Of course I am. As there are two sides to a debate, any debate, it is quite obvious that one side is going to get criticism from the opposition.

Which you yourself get to deal with in numerous threads where other posters do not agree with what you say, claim or argue.

It's a no brainer, but that wasn't your point, was it?

 

[DBT]

It seems DBT has dropped into a bit more personal approach lately which I see as regrettable.

It's not by choice, I feel compelled to respond in the way that I get treated, I don't initiate personal comments but if someone engages with personal comments and value judgments, it's not something that can be ignored indefinitely. Moderation is practically non existent.

 

[DBT]

Sure. You were parroting a religious libertarian's views

Now here's an interesting one - ''parroting a 'religious libertarian's' views. It got me wondering where the ''religious libertarian'' assertion came from, so I went and rechecked the article, and sure enough the author professes an 'interest' in Libertarianism:

''The only conception of free will that I find interesting is the libertarian one. According to this view, humans (but not other animals) can freely decide what to do regardless of the past or present state of the universe. The human will is seen as the only force that can set in motion a new causal chain, with itself being uncaused. This type of free will is radical and godlike; it creates something out of nothing; it does not have to answer to prior causes. ''


So I assume that AntiChris read or skimmed over this and came to the conclusion that the Author is indeed a Libertarian.

The problem is, the comment was more rhetorical than literal, because the Author goes on to say:

''Alas, this conception of free will is certainly false, impossible, and logically incoherent. No one (correct me if I’m wrong) has demonstrated that or how this type of will can triumph over the old soldiers of necessity and chance''

I assume the erroneous interpretation and false claim made by AntiChris in regard to ''religious libertarian'' was a result of skimming.

If not, I'm interested to know where the charge of ''religious libertarian'' came from.

As for what I said, no more or less than what I've been saying, that compatibilism is at best a semantic construct (word jugglery) and at worst, closet or quasi libertarianism (different versions)

 

[Speakpigeon]

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?

I didn't use the expression "free will". I used the word "freedom". I said, "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."

In any case, it's not what I mean by "free will" that is at issue here but what these scientists mean when they talk about freedom. And, as I already signalled, I'm not sure how to interpret this exactly.

I've looked at it again, though, and rather than the likely slip of the tongue on their part, or the usual shoddiness in their use of language, which bad me originally suspected, the phraseology they use seems instead to suggest something a bit more substantial.

But the expression "free will" is never used.

So, all is well and safe!
EB

 

[Juma]

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?

I didn't use the expression "free will". I used the word "freedom". I said, "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."

In any case, it's not what I mean by "free will" that is at issue here but what these scientists mean when they talk about freedom. And, as I already signalled, I'm not sure how to interpret this exactly.

I've looked at it again, though, and rather than the likely slip of the tongue on their part, or the usual shoddiness in their use of language, which bad me originally suspected, the phraseology they use seems instead to suggest something a bit more substantial.

But the expression "free will" is never used.

So, all is well and safe!
EB

I have no clue what this is suppose to mean.who is theese scientists and what "freedom" are they talking about and why couldnt you have explained that without me dragging it out of you?