In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[DBT]

As for the definition - "the ability to consciously select from a set of realizable alternatives" - I don't think the issue is as simple as some posters think.

This definition may be interpreted in several different ways.

From the compatibilist position, where adequate determinism enables decision making, the decision being deterministic (cannot choose otherwise), but the associated action, if not coerced, is an instance of free will.

From the Libertarian perspective, the selection/decision allows the possibility to have chosen a different option given the same circumstances and conditions, therefore the conscious selection/choice is an instance of free will.

Or the incompatibilist position; the selection/decision that is made is determined by antecedent events, as is the associated action and neither decision or action is an instance of free will.

From the perspective of evidence from neuroscience, it is not consciousness that is the decision maker, the conscious experience of making decision being a report or representation of prior unconscious processing (readiness potential) therefore not consciously chosen (the illusion of conscious will), and the subject cannot have chosen otherwise under the exact same circumstances (both external and neuronal).

 

[Togo]

As for the definition - "the ability to consciously select from a set of realizable alternatives" - I don't think the issue is as simple as some posters think.

Hm.. I think the definition is simple enough. You may disagree with whether the free will so defined is true.

This definition may be interpreted in several different ways.

Well, I suppose it could in that technology exists to twist any statement from it's intended meaning. However, since this is definition of a particular position, there is really no excuse for interpreting it in any other way than as was intended.

From the compatibilist position,

Wait, why are you taking a definition of Libertarian Free Will and applying a compatibilist position to it? They're different topics. They're not talking about the same thing at all.

where adequate determinism enables decision making, the decision being deterministic

Under adequate determinism, decisions are NOT determined. They merely behave as if they were to a suitable level of tolerance.

Or the incompatibilist position;

Um.. Libertarian Free Will is an incompatibalist position. I think you mean Determinism.

the selection/decision that is made is determined by antecedent events, as is the associated action and neither decision or action is an instance of free will.

Which doesn't change the definition at all. It simply makes the claim that free will under that definition actually occurs to be false.

From the perspective of evidence from neuroscience, it is not consciousness that is the decision maker,

eh, there isn't a unified position on this, as previously discussed. Certainly there is no peer reviewed study that makes any claim to have proven the matter. There's plenty of science that looks at conscious processing and conscious decision making, and gets results that are explained by the processing and that decision making being conscious. The idea that conscious will is an illusion is understandably very attractive to neurophysiologists, but it's largely ignored by the behavioural sciences.
.

.. a report or representation of prior unconscious processing (readiness potential) therefore not consciously chosen (the illusion of conscious will),

To argue that conscious choice is not just influenced by unconscious processing, but determined by it (..just a report or representation) you have to go well beyond the available evidence.

and the subject cannot have chosen otherwise under the exact same circumstances (both external and neuronal).

This conclusion relies on assuming determinism a priori. It can't be reached any other way. As such, it's not really a useful argument for determinism, or against positions that don't make such an assumption.

 

[The AntiChris]

This definition may be interpreted in several different ways.

Well, I suppose it could in that technology exists to twist any statement from it's intended meaning. However, since this is definition of a particular position, there is really no excuse for interpreting it in any other way than as was intended.

For once I have to agree with DBT. The 'definition' ("the ability to consciously select from a set of realizable alternatives") could quite reasonably be interpreted in more than one way.

How do you propose that one deduces the intention of the speaker from the words alone?

 

[Togo]

Well, I suppose it could in that technology exists to twist any statement from it's intended meaning. However, since this is definition of a particular position, there is really no excuse for interpreting it in any other way than as was intended.

For once I have to agree with DBT. The 'definition' ("the ability to consciously select from a set of realizable alternatives") could quite reasonably be interpreted in more than one way.

How do you propose that one deduces the intention of the speaker from the words alone?

The words are a definition used in Libertarian Free Will, so interpreting them in, say, Compatibilist terms, or Determinist terms, seems actively unhelpful.

Why would you need to work it out from the words alone? The words indicate what someone means. But it's what they mean that's important, and that's a matter of simple fact. If there's doubt, ask them. If your interpretation disagrees with theirs, you're wrong. There's no point trying to disagree with someone on what meaning they intended to convey, or what their opinion is.

 

[The AntiChris]

For once I have to agree with DBT. The 'definition' ("the ability to consciously select from a set of realizable alternatives") could quite reasonably be interpreted in more than one way.

How do you propose that one deduces the intention of the speaker from the words alone?

The words are a definition used in Libertarian Free Will, so interpreting them in, say, Compatibilist terms, or Determinist terms, seems actively unhelpful.

I don't understand this comment (what's "Libertarian Free Will"?).

Why would you need to work it out from the words alone?

If you can't, then it rather suggests that the definition isn't particularly useful.

There's no point trying to disagree with someone on what meaning they intended to convey, or what their opinion is.

I'm not disagreeing with anyone's intended meaning. I'm just saying that it's not a useful definition.

 

[fromderinside]

Mow the dumbwaiter has begun circling the drain.

Why not just mind meld.

Oh wait, that's fiction/mrobvious

 

[Togo]

The words are a definition used in Libertarian Free Will, so interpreting them in, say, Compatibilist terms, or Determinist terms, seems actively unhelpful.

I don't understand this comment (what's "Libertarian Free Will"?).

Defined in post 957, as referenced in post 980, and ostensibly the subject we're presently discussing. The definition being discussed is a definition of Libertarian Free Will.

[

Why would you need to work it out from the words alone?

If you can't, then it rather suggests that the definition isn't particularly useful.

I don't see why. Most technical definitions either assume some degree of context or prior knowledge of the subject. I can assure you it's a fairly standard definition, and it has proved useful in the past.

What it doesn't do is present the position such that you don't need to know anything about the subject to understand it. That's true of many technical definitions, including, for example, those used in physics.

 

[The AntiChris]

I don't understand this comment (what's "Libertarian Free Will"?).

Defined in post 957, as referenced in post 980, and ostensibly the subject we're presently discussing.

Ok, you mean it's a definition that you presented earlier (I thought that by capitalising the source you were referring to an academic or technical document).

Why would you need to work it out from the words alone?

If you can't, then it rather suggests that the definition isn't particularly useful.

I don't see why. Most technical definitions either assume some degree of context or prior knowledge of the subject.

What you've presented could not be described as a "technical" definition by any stretch of the imagination.

I can assure you it's a fairly standard definition,

Really? A Google search (using your precise wording) lists this forum as the only source.

What it doesn't do is present the position such that you don't need to know anything about the subject to understand it.

It requires an explanation not because it's technically complex but simply because it's sufficiently vague that it can quite reasonably be interpreted in more than one way.