Poll: Definitions of Free Wiil

[Speakpigeon]

So here is the poll on Free Will.

Some definitions are quite similar to each other but this poll will serve to cull the less successful ones and, hopefully, we'll get more clarity in a second poll to follow.

It's up to you, really.

EB

 

[Jon Osterman]

These are all shit. Your poll needs an "Other" option.

 

[DBT]

I'd argue that the term 'free will' is irrelevant. The term 'free will' tells us nothing about decision making or behaviour. It tells us nothing about how decisions are made or why they are made.

 

[fromderinside]

Free will is nothing more than subjective reconstruction of events into an order mostly to be seen as to be doing within the sense of the moment among peers as held by one. DBT's statement will do for those who need to set up a self oriented model of action.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I think that the overwhelming majority of the freewill problem comes from remaining committed to a series of misleading questions based upon some very archaic assumptions, most of which don't remotely stand up to analysis.

The easiest one to dispose of is the idea that we 'could have done otherwise all other conditions remaining the same'. There are literally no real world situations in which one could 'do otherwise all other conditions remaining the same'. This has nothing to do with any issues about freewill and everything to do with the impossibility of all other conditions remaining the same.

The fact is that any given state of the universe, or even the relevant light cone, can only occur once. More to the point a given agent can only occupy the same place at the same time once, not least because they would get in their own way. I'll say it again, it's impossible for all other conditions to ever be the same. We only ever get one shot at any given state of the universe.
As such this idea is always impossible for any given account of freewill. It can't even really be imagined, and as is so often the case with misleading thought experiments, one can only imagine imagining it. It's not only physically and practically impossible, it is simply logically impossible for the same thing to be in the same place at the same time twice.


The modified claim 'could have done otherwise almost all conditions remaining the same' really doesn't have the same force for obvious reasons. indeed, with the benefit of chaos theory and the realisation that there is always a sensitive dependence on initial conditions, the old adage that you cannot stand in the same river twice takes on additional force.

Even if it were possible, which it most certainly isn't, there's something inherently odd about wanting to do be able to do otherwise all other conditions remaining the same. Surely whatever form the will takes, you'd want it to be rational and that means that given identical circumstances you'd reach the same conclusion through whatever rational process you followed. However, this minor quibble pales into literal insignificance because you couldn't ever be in that situation.

Any objections?

 

[Hermit]

I think that the overwhelming majority of the freewill problem comes from remaining committed to a series of misleading questions based upon some very archaic assumptions, most of which don't remotely stand up to analysis.

The easiest one to dispose of is the idea that we 'could have done otherwise all other conditions remaining the same'. There are literally no real world situations in which one could 'do otherwise all other conditions remaining the same'. This has nothing to do with any issues about freewill and everything to do with the impossibility of all other conditions remaining the same.

The fact is that any given state of the universe, or even the relevant light cone, can only occur once. More to the point a given agent can only occupy the same place at the same time once, not least because they would get in their own way. I'll say it again, it's impossible for all other conditions to ever be the same. We only ever get one shot at any given state of the universe.
As such this idea is always impossible for any given account of freewill. It can't even really be imagined, and as is so often the case with misleading thought experiments, one can only imagine imagining it. It's not only physically and practically impossible, it is simply logically impossible for the same thing to be in the same place at the same time twice.


The modified claim 'could have done otherwise almost all conditions remaining the same' really doesn't have the same force for obvious reasons. indeed, with the benefit of chaos theory and the realisation that there is always a sensitive dependence on initial conditions, the old adage that you cannot stand in the same river twice takes on additional force.

Even if it were possible, which it most certainly isn't, there's something inherently odd about wanting to do be able to do otherwise all other conditions remaining the same. Surely whatever form the will takes, you'd want it to be rational and that means that given identical circumstances you'd reach the same conclusion through whatever rational process you followed. However, this minor quibble pales into literal insignificance because you couldn't ever be in that situation.

Any objections?

In short, it is not possible to test for the existence of free will. Is that the gist of your post?

 

[Subsymbolic]

I think that the overwhelming majority of the freewill problem comes from remaining committed to a series of misleading questions based upon some very archaic assumptions, most of which don't remotely stand up to analysis.

The easiest one to dispose of is the idea that we 'could have done otherwise all other conditions remaining the same'. There are literally no real world situations in which one could 'do otherwise all other conditions remaining the same'. This has nothing to do with any issues about freewill and everything to do with the impossibility of all other conditions remaining the same.

The fact is that any given state of the universe, or even the relevant light cone, can only occur once. More to the point a given agent can only occupy the same place at the same time once, not least because they would get in their own way. I'll say it again, it's impossible for all other conditions to ever be the same. We only ever get one shot at any given state of the universe.
As such this idea is always impossible for any given account of freewill. It can't even really be imagined, and as is so often the case with misleading thought experiments, one can only imagine imagining it. It's not only physically and practically impossible, it is simply logically impossible for the same thing to be in the same place at the same time twice.


The modified claim 'could have done otherwise almost all conditions remaining the same' really doesn't have the same force for obvious reasons. indeed, with the benefit of chaos theory and the realisation that there is always a sensitive dependence on initial conditions, the old adage that you cannot stand in the same river twice takes on additional force.

Even if it were possible, which it most certainly isn't, there's something inherently odd about wanting to do be able to do otherwise all other conditions remaining the same. Surely whatever form the will takes, you'd want it to be rational and that means that given identical circumstances you'd reach the same conclusion through whatever rational process you followed. However, this minor quibble pales into literal insignificance because you couldn't ever be in that situation.

Any objections?

In short, it is not possible to test for the existence of free will. Is that the gist of your post?

Well, that wasn't my target, I was just doing a little light ground clearing. However, it's certainly not possible to test for it in this way. Personally I'm unsure that this could be a test for freewill even if it were possible, for the reason given in my penultimate paragraph - if you could do otherwise, that wouldn't be free will, it would be randomness and that isn't ever freewill.

 

[Speakpigeon]

These are all shit. Your poll needs an "Other" option.

You're absolutely right... I just forgot! Too late, though, sorry...

That being said, it's good enough that you can voice your difference.


And, come to think of it, you could offer here any alternative definition you believe would be better. I could even include it in the second poll to come if it's good enough and different enough.

Now, if you don't have one then I guess we can safely ignore your otherness.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'd argue that the term 'free will' is irrelevant. The term 'free will' tells us nothing about decision making or behaviour. It tells us nothing about how decisions are made or why they are made.

That's a particularly vacuous comment. You're besting yourself spectacularly here.

Clearly, in general, the relevance of the expression 'free will' will depend on what most users of this expression mean by it and the context of use. This poll is trying to establish what that meaning is. In this particular context, how could it be irrelevant to use the expression 'free will'?! Could you explain how it would be possible to conduct such a poll about free will without using the expression 'free will'?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Free will is nothing more than subjective reconstruction of events into an order mostly to be seen as to be doing within the sense of the moment among peers as held by one. DBT's statement will do for those who need to set up a self oriented model of action.

Sorry, I can't unpack the gibberish.

Try again when you're done with the drinking.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think <snip> because you couldn't ever be in that situation.

Any objections?

Oh YES!

This is a poll on the merit of various definitions, not a discussion on the problem of free will, if any, or whether free will could conceivably exists.

Surely, it's futile to discuss the existence of free will before you've established what it is we're talking about when we're talking about free will.

Get a grip.
EB

 

[Subsymbolic]

Free will is nothing more than subjective reconstruction of events into an order mostly to be seen as to be doing within the sense of the moment among peers as held by one. DBT's statement will do for those who need to set up a self oriented model of action.

Sorry, I can't unpack the gibberish.

Try again when you're done with the drinking.
EB

Seems clear to me, he's saying that what we think is the management is in fact just the publicity department and that traditional accounts of freewill are looking in the wrong place. I think that's a very credible position to hold and one that I think is more than partially true.

 

[fromderinside]

Free will is nothing more than subjective reconstruction of events into an order mostly to be seen as to be doing within the sense of the moment among peers as held by one. DBT's statement will do for those who need to set up a self oriented model of action.

Sorry, I can't unpack the gibberish.

Try again when you're done with the drinking.
EB

I understand. Tired is like too much alcohol or drugs.

It is extremely important for one to give others's permission to act as they choose.

Therefore free will is nothing more than reconstruction of recent events into an order meaningful to the one reconstructing. The order is mostly intended as fostering a ongoing scenario of one constructively existing within one's social circle or environment. It is important for peers to see one as no threat or wave maker with respect to their survival or freedom of doing.

DBT's definition is one aimed at justifying 'purpose' for doing.

Nicely done Subsymbolic.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Therefore free will is nothing more than reconstruction of recent events into an order meaningful to the one reconstructing. The order is mostly intended as fostering a ongoing scenario of one constructively existing within one's social circle or environment. It is important for peers to see one as no threat or wave maker with respect to their survival or freedom of doing.

It's definitely better English but still not something I can interpret in the context of free will. I'd be impressed if anybody could.

I suppose I understand the general idea that human beings may be making up just-so stories to perhaps provide a structuring frame to their experience. But if true that idea probably would apply just as well to anything we do beside our belief in free will. And if you were yourself serious about this idea, you should also believe that it applies to whatever you come to think and whatever you happen to be doing. To everything human beings do. Including your commenting here. Basically, your idea seems to deny any meaningfulness to our existence.

I don't believe in your theory so I'm not impacted. But, it is problematic for you. First, you insistance at commenting on this forum shows you can't quite live up to your nice little theory.

Second, you should regard even this theory as just another meaningless just-so story you've just made up. Which can only be an absurd position to be in.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Free will is nothing more than subjective reconstruction of events into an order mostly to be seen as to be doing within the sense of the moment among peers as held by one. DBT's statement will do for those who need to set up a self oriented model of action.

Sorry, I can't unpack the gibberish.

Try again when you're done with the drinking.
EB

Seems clear to me, he's saying that what we think is the management is in fact just the publicity department and that traditional accounts of freewill are looking in the wrong place. I think that's a very credible position to hold and one that I think is more than partially true.

Aaaarg! It's really unfair that you should have such a privileged access to this great mind after so little time with us here when I still can't do it even though I've practiced reading his runes for several years now. I guess I should try tic-tac-toe and give up on trying to understand this world.
EB

 

[Subsymbolic]

I think <snip> because you couldn't ever be in that situation.

Any objections?

Oh YES!

This is a poll on the merit of various definitions, not a discussion on the problem of free will, if any, or whether free will could conceivably exists.

Surely, it's futile to discuss the existence of free will before you've established what it is we're talking about when we're talking about free will.

Get a grip.
EB

Do you think telling one poster he's drunk and the other to get a grip is a good way of moving any discussion on, ever?


Because I'm afraid I disagree. Again.

In philosophy, there is a long and distinguished tradition of ground clearing, of demonstrating clearly that older ways of looking at a problem are based on asking bad questions, on false assumptions or flawed logic. Descartes' used this approach to great effect, I'm surprised you are not a fan. Personally I think that the whole 'problem', if decomposed, just falls apart. So no, I don't think that going for dictionary definitions is a great idea, because trying to refine what a community thinks, while great for dictionaries and the soft sciences, is a lousy way of getting to think clearly about any issue.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Seems clear to me, he's saying that what we think is the management is in fact just the publicity department and that traditional accounts of freewill are looking in the wrong place. I think that's a very credible position to hold and one that I think is more than partially true.

Aaaarg! It's really unfair that you should have such a privileged access to this great mind after so little time with us here when I still can't do it even though I've practiced reading his runes for several years now. I guess I should try tic-tac-toe and give up on trying to understand this world.
EB

It's just how I read what he said. Generally I'll have a go at making sense of what someone is saying before disagreeing with them and only disagree if I do. Now, how about focussing on the ideas?

The fact is that we are social animals and being able to make sense of each other is our USP, even if it's impossible for us to do in advance of psychology's Newton and in real time after she's arrived.

There's a lovely bit in, I think, Dennett's Brainstorms where he talks about people with serious brain injuries suddenly confabulating brilliantly, and only being unmasked due to circumstance. I remember being literally transfixed, as a first year undergraduate, by Dennett's simple question: "Is this a skill suddenly learned in response to trauma, or a normal way of being unmasked." The fact is that it is diminishingly rare to hear someone not be ready at any time at all to give a complete folk psychological accounting of why they just did what they just did in as much detail as you could wish. Personally I'm less convinced it is for the benefit of the individual, more a conventional step in social interaction.

What it isn't, is a good basis for theorising, especially about things like free will, the self or consciousness.

 

[DBT]

I'd argue that the term 'free will' is irrelevant. The term 'free will' tells us nothing about decision making or behaviour. It tells us nothing about how decisions are made or why they are made.

That's a particularly vacuous comment. You're besting yourself spectacularly here.

That is your opinion. I don't agree. It was a brief remark. The terms and references are clear.

Clearly, in general, the relevance of the expression 'free will' will depend on what most users of this expression mean by it and the context of use. This poll is trying to establish what that meaning is. In this particular context, how could it be irrelevant to use the expression 'free will'?! Could you explain how it would be possible to conduct such a poll about free will without using the expression 'free will'?
EB

The term 'free will' is commonly used in references to decisions that are not coerced or forced. The very ability to make decisions is seen by some to be an example of 'free will,' but this common usage of the term free will, non coerced decisions, tells us nothing about how how decisions are made, why they are made or offers any insights into human behaviour.

So apart from the shallow references of common use, or a feel good term, 'wow, we have free will,' the term offers no insights or useful information about the nature and mechanisms of human decision making or behaviour.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think <snip> because you couldn't ever be in that situation.

Any objections?

Oh YES!

This is a poll on the merit of various definitions, not a discussion on the problem of free will, if any, or whether free will could conceivably exists.

Surely, it's futile to discuss the existence of free will before you've established what it is we're talking about when we're talking about free will.

Get a grip.
EB

Do you think telling one poster he's drunk and the other to get a grip is a good way of moving any discussion on, ever?

I didn't say he was drunk and I think I properly motivated my 'get a grip' jibe.

Because I'm afraid I disagree. Again.

So we do. I wouldn't expect any different.

In philosophy, there is a long and distinguished tradition of ground clearing, of demonstrating clearly that older ways of looking at a problem are based on asking bad questions, on false assumptions or flawed logic. Descartes' used this approach to great effect, I'm surprised you are not a fan.

Sorry, I fail to see how this relates at all to those of my posts you are criticising.

"Demonstrating clearly" is indeed the key phrase here. You should try it some day.

Personally I think that the whole 'problem', if decomposed, just falls apart.

Again, I failed to see what problem I'm supposed to have been talking about. This thread isn't about any problem. It's about finding out the best definition for free will.

So no, I don't think that going for dictionary definitions is a great idea,

None of the definitions I included in the poll is a dictionary definition.

because trying to refine what a community thinks, while great for dictionaries and the soft sciences, is a lousy way of getting to think clearly about any issue.

Lousy formulation will get you nowhere fast. I'm not "trying to refine what a community thinks", I'm trying to establish whether we can have a rationale conversation about free will starting with how people use the term 'free will'.

And I'm pretty sure that making clear what it is we're talking about is necessary to think clearly about the issue, and indeed about any issue.

And so we disagree every step of the way.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The term 'free will' is commonly used in references to decisions that are not coerced or forced. The very ability to make decisions is seen by some to be an example of 'free will,' but this common usage of the term free will, non coerced decisions, tells us nothing about how how decisions are made, why they are made or offers any insights into human behaviour.

So apart from the shallow references of common use, or a feel good term, 'wow, we have free will,' the term offers no insights or useful information about the nature and mechanisms of human decision making or behaviour.

And I didn't pretend I would solve those questions.

This thread is about the way people use the expression 'free will', nothing else.

So, again, relevance has to be assessed in relation to the context of the discussion.

So what is effectively irrelevant here, in this thread, is your own comment.

If you're interested in "how decisions are made, why they are made or offers any insights into human behaviour" then start your own thread on this topic but please stop this noise.
EB