Poll: Definitions of Free Wiil

[Speakpigeon]

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.

You just lost me here, I'm afraid.

Nothing that anybody would need to worry about though.
EB

 

[Subsymbolic]

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


Oh dear.

So now apart from having lightly offended me, you also have the added bonus of having given yourself the burden of explaining why that isn't a clear demonstration.

 

[Subsymbolic]

So, is it the case that the person who starts a thread here has some sort of ownership of it?

Because that's certainly the impression I'm getting in between the ill judged ad hominems.

Just remember that one person's noise is another person's interesting and given that you keep saying that you don't understand/can't parse/ or can make nothing of what other people can say, maybe you want to put a bit more effort into understanding before condemning.

 

[Subsymbolic]

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.

You just lost me here, I'm afraid.

Nothing that anybody would need to worry about though.
EB

How do you know you don't need to worry about it if you didn't understand what was said?

Which bits didn't you understand? I'm happy to explain.

 

[DBT]

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

How decisions are made is relevant to the issue of free will....the topic being ''definitions of free will'' including the question ''Which definition of free will best fits most people's sense of free will''

 

[Speakpigeon]

How decisions are made is relevant to the issue of free will....the topic being ''definitions of free will'' including the question ''Which definition of free will best fits most people's sense of free will''

Again, this thread evidently isn't about "the issue of free will". It's about trying to ascertain what people mean by the term 'free will'.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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


Oh dear.

So now apart from having lightly offended me, you also have the added bonus of having given yourself the burden of explaining why that isn't a clear demonstration.

What a laugh! If you only cared to read again the bit you're replying to here, you'd see that I already explained what there was to explain. Now it's up to you whether you want to proceed, but if so, you'd need to start from that.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

You just lost me here, I'm afraid.

Nothing that anybody would need to worry about though.
EB

How do you know you don't need to worry about it if you didn't understand what was said?

Which bits didn't you understand? I'm happy to explain.

I didn't say I hadn't understood what you had said.

And then it's not the first time you fail to read what is said properly.

This seems to suggest you have some sort of cognitive bias whereby you choose to interpret what people say just so you can make a satisfying repartee.

I can tell you what I'm interested in. And that is clearly formulated statements of views relevant to the topic at hand. So if you can't stick to that, then you'll loose me again.

Which, again, is fine with me.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, is it the case that the person who starts a thread here has some sort of ownership of it?

Where is it I suggest I have ownership?

What we do routinely here, though, is call out derail when we see one.

But you're free to keep doing it. There's nothing I could do to stop you or anybody else.

Because that's certainly the impression I'm getting in between the ill judged ad hominems.

And I don't see why you should have this impression at all.

Just remember that one person's noise is another person's interesting and given that you keep saying that you don't understand/can't parse/ or can make nothing of what other people can say, maybe you want to put a bit more effort into understanding before condemning.

I certainly don't "keep saying" the same thing. It is revealing, however, that you should choose to lump together my different reactions as if they weren't of a different nature.

So, for example, where is it I "keep saying" I don't "understand" what other posters say apart from the case of fromderinside?
EB

 

[Subsymbolic]

I didn't say I hadn't understood what you had said.

Nope, you said:

You just lost me here, I'm afraid.

Which is simply ambiguous. If you were using it in the sense of disagreement then traditionally there would be some argument, explanation or evidence. As there wasn't it made sense to read it as simply not understanding. If you meant it in the former sense, feel free to explain what precisely you disagree with and offer a counter argument.

And then it's not the first time you fail to read what is said properly.

So you say. However, what you wrote here is ambiguous, your quip about drinking barely made it to plausibly deniable and I'm afraid I'll be drawing my own conclusions.

This seems to suggest you have some sort of cognitive bias whereby you choose to interpret what people say just so you can make a satisfying repartee.

This would sound slightly more convincing if you had ever aimed at the argument rather than the person.

I can tell you what I'm interested in. And that is clearly formulated statements of views relevant to the topic at hand.

And you are the arbiter of that then?

So if you can't stick to that, then you'll loose me again.

Well, I wouldn't want you on the loose now, would I?

Which, again, is fine with me.

I think I'm getting the picture. Just try to focus on the arguments, because playing the man is both tedious, and, I'm told, against the TOU.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nope, you said:

You just lost me here, I'm afraid.

Which is simply ambiguous.

And then you keep suggesting I had said I didn't understand.

Go figure.

But never mind.
EB

 

[DBT]

How decisions are made is relevant to the issue of free will....the topic being ''definitions of free will'' including the question ''Which definition of free will best fits most people's sense of free will''

Again, this thread evidently isn't about "the issue of free will". It's about trying to ascertain what people mean by the term 'free will'.
EB

That is the issue I'm referring to: what people mean by the term free will. I myself outlined what I mean by the term free will, ie, that the term is irrelevant for the reasons mentioned.

Common usage of the term, as I said, usually relates to decisions that are not coerced, which is problematic because decisions may be the result of habits, addictions, desire overriding reason, fears, etc. Not actually coercion, but hardly a matter of free will.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Nope, you said:

You just lost me here, I'm afraid.

Which is simply ambiguous.

And then you keep suggesting I had said I didn't understand.

Go figure.

But never mind.
EB

Actually I explained why I reached that conclusion:

Which is simply ambiguous. If you were using it in the sense of disagreement then traditionally there would be some argument, explanation or evidence. As there wasn't it made sense to read it as simply not understanding. If you meant it in the former sense, feel free to explain what precisely you disagree with and offer a counter argument.


but you chose to ignore that bit. I wonder why?

 

[Speakpigeon]

How decisions are made is relevant to the issue of free will....the topic being ''definitions of free will'' including the question ''Which definition of free will best fits most people's sense of free will''

Again, this thread evidently isn't about "the issue of free will". It's about trying to ascertain what people mean by the term 'free will'.
EB

That is the issue I'm referring to: what people mean by the term free will. I myself outlined what I mean by the term free will, ie, that the term is irrelevant for the reasons mentioned.

Common usage of the term, as I said, usually relates to decisions that are not coerced, which is problematic because decisions may be the result of habits, addictions, desire overriding reason, fears, etc. Not actually coercion, but hardly a matter of free will.

Sorry, I still don't understand.

How could any term be irrelevant to what people mean by it?

It also doesn't make much sense to say as you do here that what you mean by a term is that it is irrelevant.

There's also a more subtil point. I did ask posters here to offer definitions but this thread is still about what people in general mean by 'free will'. Relevance has to be assessed accordingly.
EB

 

[Subsymbolic]

That is the issue I'm referring to: what people mean by the term free will. I myself outlined what I mean by the term free will, ie, that the term is irrelevant for the reasons mentioned.

Common usage of the term, as I said, usually relates to decisions that are not coerced, which is problematic because decisions may be the result of habits, addictions, desire overriding reason, fears, etc. Not actually coercion, but hardly a matter of free will.

Sorry, I still don't understand.

How could any term be irrelevant to what people mean by it?

It also doesn't make much sense to say as you do here that what you mean by a term is that it is irrelevant.

There's also a more subtil point. I did ask posters here to offer definitions but this thread is still about what people in general mean by 'free will'. Relevance has to be assessed accordingly.
EB

Meh. I think it's time for a second thread.

 

[DBT]

That is the issue I'm referring to: what people mean by the term free will. I myself outlined what I mean by the term free will, ie, that the term is irrelevant for the reasons mentioned.

Common usage of the term, as I said, usually relates to decisions that are not coerced, which is problematic because decisions may be the result of habits, addictions, desire overriding reason, fears, etc. Not actually coercion, but hardly a matter of free will.

Sorry, I still don't understand.

How could any term be irrelevant to what people mean by it?

Context. As you know, there are many definitions of free will, Libertarian, Compatibalist, several common references/usage, decision making, absence of coercion, selection of options from a realizable set of alternatives, etc.

Someone may say, ''he chose to do that of his own free will'' - but what is this 'free will' how does it work? It's just semantics. The reference to 'free will'' is not clear. What are we talking about? It could be phased as ''he acted according to his will'' - either way it doesn't tell us much. The guy may have an obsessive/compulsive disorder. We don't know unless we dig deeper.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How could any term be irrelevant to what people mean by it?

Context. As you know, there are many definitions of free will, Libertarian, Compatibalist, several common references/usage, decision making, absence of coercion, selection of options from a realizable set of alternatives, etc.

Someone may say, ''he chose to do that of his own free will'' - but what is this 'free will' how does it work? It's just semantics. The reference to 'free will'' is not clear. What are we talking about? It could be phased as ''he acted according to his will'' - either way it doesn't tell us much. The guy may have an obsessive/compulsive disorder. We don't know unless we dig deeper.

How could any term be irrelevant to the question of what people mean by it?

And how any term could be said irrelevant to anything before you can decide what it is the term means in the context?
EB

 

[DBT]

How could any term be irrelevant to what people mean by it?

Context. As you know, there are many definitions of free will, Libertarian, Compatibalist, several common references/usage, decision making, absence of coercion, selection of options from a realizable set of alternatives, etc.

Someone may say, ''he chose to do that of his own free will'' - but what is this 'free will' how does it work? It's just semantics. The reference to 'free will'' is not clear. What are we talking about? It could be phased as ''he acted according to his will'' - either way it doesn't tell us much. The guy may have an obsessive/compulsive disorder. We don't know unless we dig deeper.

How could any term be irrelevant to the question of what people mean by it?

And how any term could be said irrelevant to anything before you can decide what it is the term means in the context?
EB

Not irrelevant to how it's used by the speaker but perhaps to the object that is being referred to......''thank God that he wasn't killed'' being relevant to the person using the phrase, but is there an actual God to thank?

 

[Speakpigeon]

How could any term be irrelevant to the question of what people mean by it?

And how any term could be said irrelevant to anything before you can decide what it is the term means in the context?
EB

Not irrelevant to how it's used by the speaker but perhaps to the object that is being referred to......''thank God that he wasn't killed'' being relevant to the person using the phrase, but is there an actual God to thank?

I see why I usually choose to ignore your posts.
EB

 

[DBT]

How could any term be irrelevant to the question of what people mean by it?

And how any term could be said irrelevant to anything before you can decide what it is the term means in the context?
EB

Not irrelevant to how it's used by the speaker but perhaps to the object that is being referred to......''thank God that he wasn't killed'' being relevant to the person using the phrase, but is there an actual God to thank?

I see why I usually choose to ignore your posts.
EB

Thanks for your comment. I have no interest in what you do. Your snide conceit and arrogance toward others who you happen to disagree with is clearly displayed in your posts. Reeks of it. Good riddance.