In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[Speakpigeon]

Mainstream physics. I'm not one hundred percent sure it still is but I'm one hundred percent sure it was only a few years back.


I certainly could but I don't want to. I find it bewildering that the swarm of people here posing as scientifically literate should be ignorant of it.

Also I'm not interested in a discussion about this. The point is that the obvious failure to join the dots in this respect is evidence that the discussion on free will is almost exclusively ideological rather than rational.

And reference to a text where they discuss this?

You are smart enough and scientifically litterate enough to find out all by yourself. You'll know that's it when you see it. Come back when you do.
EB

What the heck? I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, how could I then search for it?

Whoa. And how do you think I found it!? If I could do it, you can too.

Please, don't come back until you’ve found it.
EB



PS. And it's not as if it was so important. If you needed that to understand that people have some kind of freedom to choose what they want to do then you probably deserve to remain in your ignorance until such a time as you stumble on it by chance and get another go at understanding your position in the grand scheme of things.


Most people on this board don't make much sense when it comes to expressing their views on philosophical questions. I'm sure most actual scientists would probably be better at it but not much judging by people like bright kid Krauss talking about the universe coming out of nothing. If the mainstream scientists themselves who are using this kind of language about human freedom were asked whether this should be construed as a validation of the view that human beings have some kind of basic freedom to choose what they want to do my guess is that they would probably backtrack. But since their statements about the issue are categorical, quite straightforward and so very well-known, they could only backtrack by poo-pooing the suggestion rather than have a critical look at their language.

In a way, you must be right, the kind of free will some here try to argue for cannot possibly exist. Most people here cer-tainly behave as if they were automata, spewing continuously the same nonsensical and often idiotic justifications of their views. And they appear to have absolutely no clues about that. More often than should be allowed, it is as if they have been programmed to produce random statements or random responses. It's quite fascinating and educational. I have been aware of this since my teenage years so it's no news to me. But somehow some part of my brain still hopes and tries to make sense of what they say. I certainly shouldn't expect them to do better than professional philosophers, or indeed scientists, and those don't do very well. To be sure, the amount of technical expertise on the justification of many particular views, as accumulated over a period of 2,500 years since the Ancient Greeks, is quite something and one has to at least look at it. But I'm not impressed. Philosophers are human beings and what they say is essentially a reflection of that single fact. Yet, many philosophers at least try to argue meaningfully and logically. Most scientists, certainly those who express themselves in books, are not even at that basic level, Krauss just being the perfect example of that. No wonder they need maths and double-checks to get anything done.

 

[fromderinside]

I will just chime in here to add that some philosophers take determinism to its logical conclusion and say we should do away with the idea of moral responsibility altogether (Galen Strawson is the most vocal proponent of this idea). From Wikipedia:



Premise 3 does not require absolute determinism, just enough that the average person has little to no control over "the way you are" due to genes, environmental conditioning, etc. But if determinism is total, premise 3 is definitely true.

Yeah... I've never been convinced by Strawson.

For example, in the sequence of logic above, I'm trying to imagine a definition of 'ultimately responsible' that would make both 2) and 3) uncontrovertially true, and still fit the concept of moral responsibility.

I've never been able to tell if he's actually making an independent argument, or if he's just fudging the distinction between compatibilist and libertarian free will, by apparently covering both with the same wallpaper definition, and then assuming a logical framework that would invalidate both.

Maybe he's suggesting there is something needing change in the idea of moral responsibility? I certainly am.

 

[fromderinside]

Mainstream physics. I'm not one hundred percent sure it still is but I'm one hundred percent sure it was only a few years back.


I certainly could but I don't want to. I find it bewildering that the swarm of people here posing as scientifically literate should be ignorant of it.

Also I'm not interested in a discussion about this. The point is that the obvious failure to join the dots in this respect is evidence that the discussion on free will is almost exclusively ideological rather than rational.

And reference to a text where they discuss this?

You are smart enough and scientifically litterate enough to find out all by yourself. You'll know that's it when you see it. Come back when you do.
EB

What the heck? I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, how could I then search for it?

Whoa. And how do you think I found it!? If I could do it, you can too.

Please, don't come back until you’ve found it.
EB



PS. And it's not as if it was so important. If you needed that to understand that people have some kind of freedom to choose what they want to do then you probably deserve to remain in your ignorance until such a time as you stumble on it by chance and get another go at understanding your position in the grand scheme of things.


Most people on this board don't make much sense when it comes to expressing their views on philosophical questions. I'm sure most actual scientists would probably be better at it but not much judging by people like bright kid Krauss talking about the universe coming out of nothing. If the mainstream scientists themselves who are using this kind of language about human freedom were asked whether this should be construed as a validation of the view that human beings have some kind of basic freedom to choose what they want to do my guess is that they would probably backtrack. But since their statements about the issue are categorical, quite straightforward and so very well-known, they could only backtrack by poo-pooing the suggestion rather than have a critical look at their language.

In a way, you must be right, the kind of free will some here try to argue for cannot possibly exist. Most people here cer-tainly behave as if they were automata, spewing continuously the same nonsensical and often idiotic justifications of their views. And they appear to have absolutely no clues about that. More often than should be allowed, it is as if they have been programmed to produce random statements or random responses. It's quite fascinating and educational. I have been aware of this since my teenage years so it's no news to me. But somehow some part of my brain still hopes and tries to make sense of what they say. I certainly shouldn't expect them to do better than professional philosophers, or indeed scientists, and those don't do very well. To be sure, the amount of technical expertise on the justification of many particular views, as accumulated over a period of 2,500 years since the Ancient Greeks, is quite something and one has to at least look at it. But I'm not impressed. Philosophers are human beings and what they say is essentially a reflection of that single fact. Yet, many philosophers at least try to argue meaningfully and logically. Most scientists, certainly those who express themselves in books, are not even at that basic level, Krauss just being the perfect example of that. No wonder they need maths and double-checks to get anything done.

Just remove the mortar. Freedom is relative to perception, perception is relative to place and time, so freedom is relative to place time and person. Thank you. Not a problem.

 

[DBT]

The word 'freedom' - as with all words - is related to whatever an observer applies the word to in terms of common usage, common meaning. Consensus reality expressed in the form of language.

''Consensus reality is that which is generally agreed to be reality, based on a consensus view.

''The difficulty with the question stems from the concern that human beings do not in fact fully understand or agree upon the nature of knowledge or ontology, and therefore it is not possible to be certain beyond doubt what is real.[3][4] Accordingly, this line of logic concludes, we cannot in fact be sure beyond doubt about the nature of reality. We can, however, seek to obtain some form of consensus, with others, of what is real. We can use this consensus as a pragmatic guide, either on the assumption that it seems to approximate some kind of valid reality, or simply because it is more "practical" than perceived alternatives. Consensus reality therefore refers to the agreed-upon concepts of reality which people in the world, or a culture or group, believe are real (or treat as real), usually based upon their common experiences as they believe them to be; anyone who does not agree with these is sometimes stated to be "in effect... living in a different world."

 

[Speakpigeon]

Freedom is relative to perception, perception is relative to place and time, so freedom is relative to place time and person. Thank you. Not a problem.

Sorry, can anybody provide a response to this one, I won't bother.

I'm lazy today.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not a response, just for the record...

The expression "the nature of reality" is just moronic. It is probably debatable whether nature is just a part of reality or the whole of it, but reality certainly doesn't properly have a nature. Reality is not the kind of thing that would have a nature.


Also, there is no consensus on the type of reality we exist in. It is interesting, though, that the obvious logical fact that one person is in effect a group of people with just one person in it and that therefore there is no logical distinction to be drawn between the consensus view of a group and the consensus view of just one individual. There is obviously an important difference which is the one guy is marginally more pragmatically capable of reaching a consensus view on his own than are groups of more than one person. This may even explain something about human societies.
EB

 

[DBT]

Not a response, just for the record;

The term 'the nature of reality' is just a common phrase that refers to the physical world as it is, and not necessarily how we perceive it to be, therefore not 'moronic' but limited, just 'short hand' for objective reality. The world as it is, rather than how we may perceive it to be through the filter of consciousness or 'consensus reality' and conveyed through language/semantics/narrative.

What Is The Nature Of Reality?

''What’s the problem? Isn’t it enough that things are as they are? No, because we are sometimes deceived. We need to tell the difference between hard ground and marsh that only looks hard. We need to know whether something is a bear or only a child with a bearskin rug over its head. We have evolved to tell the real from the false. Injure the brain and the victim may lose their sense of reality. When you have flu the familiar world can seem unreal. You might as well ask “What is the nature of ‘upright’?”

The real is the genuine, the reliable, what I can safely lean on. It is akin to truthful, valuable, even delightful. Its opposite is not illusion, but the fake, the counterfeit, that which can’t be trusted, has no cash value. Theatre, television, paintings, literature deal in illusion but can be real in the sense that they nurture and enlarge us, help to make sense of experience. When they fail in this, they feel unreal, they don’t ring true. They are false, they fail as art. Theatre and everyday life overlap – although the murderer in the play is not prosecuted. Psychotherapists know how people act out ‘scripts’ which they can rewrite to invent a new reality. It may not matter if the story of my life is real or invented, until a lawyer asks if I am really the person mentioned in my long-lost uncle’s will.''

The Nature of Reality.

 

[fromderinside]

Freedom is relative to perception, perception is relative to place and time, so freedom is relative to place time and person. Thank you. Not a problem.

Sorry, can anybody provide a response to this one, I won't bother.

I'm lazy today.
EB

Even this will pass EB. Hang in there./perceptiveone

 

[Togo]

Irrelevant to what?

If you'd been paying attention, you'd know what I said. So I wouldn't have to repeat what I've already provided. Which I'm not going to do.

Ok, so your argument doesn't work.

What you've presented thus far is the idea that something that doesn't chime with your view of how choice works, is irrelevant. That doesn't logically follow, because it presupposes that any given position is using your definitions and preconceptions as to what should be relevant to the inquiry. I suspect what you mean is 'wrong'.

However, to support the idea that it's irrelevant you've cited a few scientists who have found the idea incoherent according to their own definitions and outlooks. That's fine, but in your quotations you've left out the bit the where they say what they feel the relevant considerations are, and simply cited them saying that it's irrelevant. In their arguments, they have some idea of what is and isn't relevant. For example neuro-ethics largely embraces compatibilist definitions as being most relevant. What they aren't doing is supporting your idea, of trying to make a strictly semantic argument that libertarian free will is somehow 'generally irrelevant' by definition, because that's an incoherent concept.

Something can only be relevant or irrelevant to a particular subject. The reason I keep asking you "irrelevant to what" is because I know it's a question you're unable to directly answer, because the only possible answer is to describe a set of criteria that you're accepting a priori.

 

[DBT]

If you'd been paying attention, you'd know what I said. So I wouldn't have to repeat what I've already provided. Which I'm not going to do.

Ok, so your argument doesn't work.

What you've presented thus far is the idea that something that doesn't chime with your view of how choice works, is irrelevant. That doesn't logically follow, because it presupposes that any given position is using your definitions and preconceptions as to what should be relevant to the inquiry. I suspect what you mean is 'wrong'.

However, to support the idea that it's irrelevant you've cited a few scientists who have found the idea incoherent according to their own definitions and outlooks. That's fine, but in your quotations you've left out the bit the where they say what they feel the relevant considerations are, and simply cited them saying that it's irrelevant. In their arguments, they have some idea of what is and isn't relevant. For example neuro-ethics largely embraces compatibilist definitions as being most relevant. What they aren't doing is supporting your idea, of trying to make a strictly semantic argument that libertarian free will is somehow 'generally irrelevant' by definition, because that's an incoherent concept.

Something can only be relevant or irrelevant to a particular subject. The reason I keep asking you "irrelevant to what" is because I know it's a question you're unable to directly answer, because the only possible answer is to describe a set of criteria that you're accepting a priori.

Rubbish, I have explained the irrelevance of the term 'free will' numerous times to you over the course of ten years. So if you are still incapable of grasping meaning of the given explanations, I can't help you. I can only assume it's a case of cognitive dissonance. Or just an unwillingness to understand because actually understanding would interfere with your ideology.

Why are you even responding to my posts? Have you already forgotten all of our past interactions? Or are you just looking for a fight?

 

[The AntiChris]

Ok, so your argument doesn't work.

What you've presented thus far is the idea that something that doesn't chime with your view of how choice works, is irrelevant. That doesn't logically follow, because it presupposes that any given position is using your definitions and preconceptions as to what should be relevant to the inquiry. I suspect what you mean is 'wrong'.

However, to support the idea that it's irrelevant you've cited a few scientists who have found the idea incoherent according to their own definitions and outlooks. That's fine, but in your quotations you've left out the bit the where they say what they feel the relevant considerations are, and simply cited them saying that it's irrelevant. In their arguments, they have some idea of what is and isn't relevant. For example neuro-ethics largely embraces compatibilist definitions as being most relevant. What they aren't doing is supporting your idea, of trying to make a strictly semantic argument that libertarian free will is somehow 'generally irrelevant' by definition, because that's an incoherent concept.

Something can only be relevant or irrelevant to a particular subject. The reason I keep asking you "irrelevant to what" is because I know it's a question you're unable to directly answer, because the only possible answer is to describe a set of criteria that you're accepting a priori.

Rubbish, I have explained the irrelevance of the term 'free will' numerous times to you over the course of ten years.

The "I've already explained" response is a standard internet evasion.

If you're going to continually repeat a claim, as you do, then you should really be prepared to repeat your supporting argument.

 

[DBT]

Rubbish, I have explained the irrelevance of the term 'free will' numerous times to you over the course of ten years.

The "I've already explained" response is a standard internet evasion.

If you're going to continually repeat a claim, as you do, then you should really be prepared to repeat your supporting argument.

Except when it's not an evasion, when explanations have been given and the typical response is feigned incomprehension...or worse.

In a way you are right, I am trying to avoid Togo. Not because of the subject matter, but because of his past accusations, which he has repeatedly made:

Togo; ''I shouldn't have to pay you or convince you to leave me alone. It's not reasonable to require long detailed posts from someone as a price for having a conversation. I shouldn't be pursued by you at all. I reported a fact, that I had experienced. You were still hounding me about it 16 pages later, even after I'd stopped posting for 9 days.

That's just creepy.''

It's creepy because no one else does it, you don't do it to anyone else, it's a special treatment just for me. I shouldn't have to put up with that.

So, why on earth would I want to interact with Togo in any way, shape or form?

Yet here he is, even after repeatedly having made false and intolerable accusations of stalking, responding to my posts and expecting...what? I don't know.

Quite, frankly, the situation is more than a little bizarre.

 

[DBT]

If you're going to continually repeat a claim, as you do, then you should really be prepared to repeat your supporting argument.

Why should I repeat something that should have been addressed the first time, or the second or the third and the fourth and on and on....for ten fucking years!!!! And ten years later I'm asked to repeat it again? To what result? Feigned incomprehension, and yet more feigned incomprehension.....only to be asked to repeat the argument? Really? Are you serious?

How many times before enough is enough? A hundred repetitions? A thousand? Several thousand?

Tell me, what do you think would happen if I posted the argument for the irrelevancy of the term 'free will' as a description or representation of human cognition, decision making and behaviour again? Something different to the last time, or the time before that, something different to the response I got from Togo ten years ago? Do you think?

 

[Togo]

The "I've already explained" response is a standard internet evasion.

If you're going to continually repeat a claim, as you do, then you should really be prepared to repeat your supporting argument.

Except when it's not an evasion, when explanations have been given

Which don't address the point being made. I'm happy to acknowledge that you have been willing to repeat statements of position over and over, in the apparent belief that they address the point being made. But they don't. Rather than repeat arguments over again, why not just address the specific point being made?

I've explained exactly and precisely the point I'm making, and exactly and precisely why your most recent presentation of your position doesn't address that point. This doesn't have to be hard.

and the typical response is feigned incomprehension...or worse.

In a way you are right, I am trying to avoid Togo. Not because of the subject matter, but because of his past...

So, why on earth would I want to interact with Togo in any way, shape or form?

So don't. Put me on ignore. I'd agree that if your feelings about me are so strong that you can't stick to the board's standards of conduct, then you probably shouldn't post at all.

Yet here he is, even after repeatedly having made false and intolerable accusations of stalking, responding to my posts and expecting...what? I don't know.

A discussion of philosophy. That's what the boards are for.

 

[DBT]

Except when it's not an evasion, when explanations have been given

Which don't address the point being made. I'm happy to acknowledge that you have been willing to repeat statements of position over and over, in the apparent belief that they address the point being made. But they don't. Rather than repeat arguments over again, why not just address the specific point being made?

I've explained exactly and precisely the point I'm making, and exactly and precisely why your most recent presentation of your position doesn't address that point. This doesn't have to be hard.

Not true. And sure, it doesn't have to be hard, it shouldn't be hard, but it is hard because you do not address what I say, regardless of your protests to the contrary. What you do is 'address' your own version of what I say. Whether intentionally or not, you argue against your own Strawman.

That is the source of our conflict.

So don't. Put me on ignore. I'd agree that if your feelings about me are so strong that you can't stick to the board's standards of conduct, then you probably shouldn't post at all.

There is no point putting you on ignore when you persist in instigating our ongoing conflict by replying to posts that were not addressed to you, and when I respond and things inevitably go downhill, you accuse me of stalking you when it is you who initiates the exchange in the first place.

Irrational behaviour to say the least. Otherwise I'd be n more than happy to ignore you and your discussions with other posters.

But it seems that you choose what you know will lead to conflict, and then howl that I am stalking you. Very strange indeed.

A discussion of philosophy. That's what the boards are for.

Considering our long history of conflict, that's quite amusing.

 

[Togo]

Which don't address the point being made. I'm happy to acknowledge that you have been willing to repeat statements of position over and over, in the apparent belief that they address the point being made. But they don't. Rather than repeat arguments over again, why not just address the specific point being made?

I've explained exactly and precisely the point I'm making, and exactly and precisely why your most recent presentation of your position doesn't address that point. This doesn't have to be hard.

Not true. And sure, it doesn't have to be hard, it shouldn't be hard, but it is hard because you do not address what I say, regardless of your protests to the contrary. What you do is 'address' your own version of what I say. Whether intentionally or not, you argue against your own Strawman.

That is the source of our conflict.

<shrug> I disagree. I've made my point. Let me know when you want to discuss it.

 

[Togo]

So, given that there are several different questions contained within free will, it's probably worth running over them again.

Compatibalism is the idea that free will is about making choices free from force or coercion. This is the kind of free will that often comes in moral philosophy and ethics, and thus in law. That we have this kind of freedom, at least on occasion, is relatively uncontroversial, although a few philosophers do reject even this very limited concept of free will. What's more often discussed is the idea that compatibalism is not sufficient to capture what people usually mean by free will, leading to a different definition of free will, incompatibalism.

Incompatibalism Is the idea that free will is about making choices free from (pre)determination. This form of free will is less about morality than about the nature of the world, and human decision making, and is about freedom from decisions being determined by either by prior states of the universe, or by the will of a deity.

Libertarian Free Will is the form of free will discussed under Incompatibalism. There are many definitions given, but one of the most common debated on these boards is "the ability to consciously select from between realisable alternatives." The key points here are that it is a conscious choice, an effective choice, and that the selection is between alternatives that can each actually occur.

Determinism is the idea that all events in the universe are determined by prior events or states., thus rejecting Libertarian Free Will. It comes in various degrees, from Absolute Determinism (aka Fatalism), in which all events are strictly determined, through to softer variations where true randomness is also permitted, thus making all events either determined or random.

Adequate Determinism is the idea that determinism is false, but that the universe behaves as if it were determined for most practical purposes. This is most usually advanced as an attempt to rescue deterministic models of the universe (e.g. Newtonian physics) from the actuality of apparently random events (e.g. Quantum Mechanics). However, it is also used to argue for a reconciliation between the use of deterministic models and Libertarian Free Will.

The key point is that these differing views of free will are not always disagreements about a single concept, but, are also disagreements about what concept we should be concerned about. Compatibalism and Incompatibalism are not in disagreement with each other, they're discussions about totally different concepts, and which of those concepts are important in which contexts.

Much of the recent discussions on this thread have either been about whether compitabalism or incompatibalism put forward the most sensible definition of what people mean by free will.

 

[dx713]

I object to the use of "conscious" in libertarian free-will.
(Or maybe you need to extend your summary to also define conscious, I might be misunderstanding you)

Because it seems to imply that compatibilist determinism reject conscious decisions - while it can be that the decision is conscious, in the sense that I am aware that I am making a decision and have a rationale for it, but couldn't have come to another decision under the exact same set of circumstances (extension of Spinoza's "I'm made to want what I want")

And yes, I'm aware some (most?) decisions are actually unconscious and rationalized after the fact, but I'd say that's a third layer of the debate, which is why I think introducing the word "conscious" in your summary might lead to some misunderstanding.

 

[Togo]

I object to the use of "conscious" in libertarian free-will.
(Or maybe you need to extend your summary to also define conscious, I might be misunderstanding you)

No, I suspect it's a fair point.

Because it seems to imply that compatibilist determinism reject conscious decisions - while it can be that the decision is conscious, in the sense that I am aware that I am making a decision and have a rationale for it, but couldn't have come to another decision under the exact same set of circumstances (extension of Spinoza's "I'm made to want what I want")

Yeah, this is the problem with trying to do a single set of definitions that cover all the combinations. You're quite correct that compatibilism does not reject conscious decision making. However, the conscious nature of decision making is far more of a football to kicked around when it comes to Determinism, which often does reject conscious decision making, and the validity of conscious experience generally. Hence LFW needs a 'conscious' label to distinguish from determinism, while the more natural pairing of compatibalism versus incompatibalism doesn't in the same way.

And yes, I'm aware some (most?) decisions are actually unconscious and rationalized after the fact, but I'd say that's a third layer of the debate, which is why I think introducing the word "conscious" in your summary might lead to some misunderstanding.

It's not a definition I invented, and I've been successfully arguing it for quite some time, so I'm reluctant to remove it. I'm open to suggestions though. Maybe make it clear that compatibalism is agnostic as to conscious or unconscious decision making?

I'll point out that I'm not the best person to resolve this point, as one of my issues with compatibalism is that I don't feel it handles unconscious influence all that well.

 

[The AntiChris]

So, why on earth would I want to interact with Togo in any way, shape or form?

You don't have to. Ignore him.