There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[DBT]

I challenge that assertion. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that our brains haven't changed in any measurable way since the ice ages (maybe prior to that). Other animals don't display invention or innovation, nor do they display the same degree of stacked knowledge.

Which is precisely why I specified 'software' - the physical brain being the hardware, with learning and acquired knowledge being the 'software'

Other animals do bot have the necessary 'hardware' - neural architecture - that enables human capacity for language and learning.

As I said, it is the state of the brain that determines output, not 'free will' or magical soul.

 

[DBT]

Invention is built on the framework of past discoveries. Once upon a time we lived in caves and had no idea of how to build houses....our mental software has developed since then...at an ever expanding rate.

Invention is first seeing what exists and imagining something else.

I have never said otherwise....but not only observations of the natural world, but what other people have discovered....knowledge being built over time, transmitted first through observation and oral transmission then the written word, Guilds formed, etc....

 

[fast]

What is the difference between freewill and freedom? I ask with profound hesitancy. I should probably ask instead, what is freedom. I'm just nervous that I'm going to get a bozo the clown response similar to how a person claims inaccuracy when criminality is denied despite legal context. I don't want a play on ambiguity. Also, while there are differences between things, similarities shouldn't be foresaken.

Traditionally freewill concerns being able to have the intention to do something while freedom concerns actually being able to act. So if I encase you in concrete, leaving room only for you to breath, I remove rather a lot of freedom but zero freewill. If I SciFi brainwash you then I remove freewill - there's a further argument as to whether this also removes freedom. I say yes. others don't.

I see.

I appreciate the distinction you're making. Intentions, a creature from the mental realm--slain not, almost no matter how his physical self might be impeded. To bring a little normalcy to that, an implication according to your view is that a person forced at gun point to enter a white van still has both free will and freedom, as she a) could have intended to resist and b) could have behaved accordingly. If she were grabbed and forcibly escorted in, then free will would not have been (per your view) affected but freedom would have. I can envision four fundamental scenarios where free will and freedom would be or not be present.

It's not the distinctions but the applicability of the terms that bother me. I think a lady that does not want to enter a van that nevertheless intends to do so at threat of gun point would not in ordinary parlance be regarded as someone acting of her own free will.

When I think of freedom, I tend to think of it in a different context, yet when it spills over into this context, the distinction makes not a difference when the terms are just used interchangeably, as if synonyms in certain contexts. A person bound in a basement has had his freedom taken away and did not remain of his own free will.

 

[untermensche]

Invention is built on the framework of past discoveries. Once upon a time we lived in caves and had no idea of how to build houses....our mental software has developed since then...at an ever expanding rate.

Invention is first seeing what exists and imagining something else.

I have never said otherwise....but not only observations of the natural world, but what other people have discovered....knowledge being built over time, transmitted first through observation and oral transmission then the written word, Guilds formed, etc....

What you miss is the real world direction towards an idea that only is accessible to consciousness.

An idea no evolved mechanism could force a human towards since the mechanisms preceded the idea.

 

[Val]

Ooh, somebody's a bit of a dirty big dualist, isnhe?

 

[bilby]

So go ahead show me how it is rational to say a cyclone has "will" no less "free will".

How would this will be created? By what activity?

What would it's purpose be?

I could ask you the same question about your 'woman'.

Which is the entire point.

You are assuming your conclusion. You can demonstrate the existence of free will, as long as you are able to start with an entity that you define as having free will.

That's not logic, or reason; it's circular argument and pointless mental masturbation.

I am not assuming anything.

We can imagine the choice is free.

Or we can say the universe planned it at it's inception.

Take your pick.

Either this is a false dichotomy fallacy; or you are a moron.

Take your pick.

 

[Speakpigeon]

As to knowledge of the so-call objective world, I think it doesn't amount to knowledge at all.

How do you square your viewpoint with the collected body of human knowledge, the sciences, etc?

By accepting it's not knowledge of something that would be the world out there.

That supposed knowledge is just a model, or more precisely a part of the model we have in mind. We know the model, and we believe naively that the model is true, or at least partially true, of the world.

So, in effect, it's not knowledge, it's a belief.

Whether the model is true, we just don't know.

And in practice, it doesn't make much difference. I really believe there's a shop, a shop keeper and bread and foodstuff when I believe I go shopping. I doubt very much there's anything we could do about that.

And you could make exactly the same argument about our senses. You could argue that the colours we perceive must be real since we use them and it works wonderfully, and so we would be supposed to know real colours that would be out there. Except this is contradicted by science. The colours as we experience them can only be inside our heads, somehow, and whatever is outside that we believe we perceive can only be something like electromagnetic waves of various wavelengths, whatever that is. No blue. No red. Just "electromagnetic waves".

So, instead of knowing the world, we know our model of the world. So, at least that's something we know. Some of this model is perceptual, some of it abstract formalism. Same effect. It's a model. And instead of knowing the world, we trust our model, and that's good enough. I can say the same thing, it works! But we're subject to naive realism, which is simply that we naively take our perceptual model to be the actual world outside. We really believe there's a blue flower there and a red tomato. We really do. And then we extend our belief to our abstract and formal scientific model of the world. And, clearly, we also suffer a kind of naive realism about it, too, the one you display by insisting science is real knowledge of the world. Some things never change.
EB

That's... very philosophical, I guess. But it gets too close to the borderline solipsist argument for me.

So you in effect prefer to accept that you may be taking a make-believe story at face value rather than argue that it isn't a make-believe story?!

It's a pointless and meaningless distinction.

It's our situation. I doubt very much that understanding our situation better could be either meaningless or pointless.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Either this is a false dichotomy fallacy; or you are a moron.

Take your pick.

That's a false dichotomy.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I am not assuming anything.

We can imagine the choice is free.

Or we can say the universe planned it at it's inception.

Take your pick.

Either this is a false dichotomy fallacy; or you are a moron.

Take your pick.

Total non sequitur.

Here's what you claim to somehow be addressing:

The woman made an argument.

If she has free will she made the argument freely.

If she does not have free will the universe had planned to make that argument, and this one, at it's inception.

Which is more likely?

 

[bilby]

Either this is a false dichotomy fallacy; or you are a moron.

Take your pick.

That's a false dichotomy.
EB

Indeed. It's intended as an example of such.

 

[bilby]

Total non sequitur.

Here's what you claim to somehow be addressing:

The woman made an argument.

If she has free will she made the argument freely.

If she does not have free will the universe had planned to make that argument, and this one, at it's inception.

Which is more likely?

Yes, that's the false dichotomy I am addressing. If she does not have free will, there are other possibilities than "the universe had planned to make that argument, and this one, at it's inception".

I even showed that it is also an unsound argument, that depends upon the unspoken premise that the woman has free will (thereby rendering the argument also circular, and hence invalid), buy replacing your chosen exemplar of an entity that we are testing for freewill (a woman) with an alternate entity that we could also test for free will (a cyclone), but which we agree does NOT have free will.

As your form of argument is able to prove that which we agree is untrue, it is shown to be unsound.

You need to learn how to use logic before trying to employ it; Or you will continue to make a fool of yourself in this way.

 

[Treedbear]

For those of you arguing that free will doesn't exist, or that choice is an illusion...

Can you explain how imagination and invention are deterministic? Can you explain how the building of new knowledge upon prior knowledge, and the extrapolation of what is known into the realm of the not-yet-known comes to be? What mechanism separates dream from imagination?

I think imagination and invention are the result of the evolution of existing concepts and ideas. Not by "poofing" them into being like some omnipotent deity would or with the help of some otherwise free will. Intelligence itself is based on the same process as evolution. As there are no truly random events, it is deterministic all the way down to (but probably not including) the quantum level. All that's needed is a system that provides a mechanism for survival of an idea and you have it. I think that's easily managed in the neurobiological structure of a brain. Rather than "free will" I prefer "mutable will". To acknowledge changeability but not without reason. I won't give up that.

I don't know enough about dreaming but it seems clear that it involves the imagination. How do you mean they are separate?

 

[Emily Lake]

I challenge that assertion. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that our brains haven't changed in any measurable way since the ice ages (maybe prior to that). Other animals don't display invention or innovation, nor do they display the same degree of stacked knowledge.

Which is precisely why I specified 'software' - the physical brain being the hardware, with learning and acquired knowledge being the 'software'

Other animals do bot have the necessary 'hardware' - neural architecture - that enables human capacity for language and learning.

Well... that's not exactly true is it? We've had several cases of apes being taught sign language, and in many cases different vocalizations of an animal have different meanings that are fairly clearly understood by other animals of that species. An angry moose sounds a helluva lot different from a horny moose. In addition, there are several species that teach their offspring skills that are not instinctual. There's a fairly robust body of evidence on this. As an example, kittens have an instinct to pounce, but they don't instinctively know how to kill their prey - their mothers teach them that skill. And behavioral norms among wolves are taught by the leaders and adults within the pack. Other animals certainly do have the capacity for both language and learning. That capacity may not be as comprehensive or complex... but it's by no means absent.

As I said, it is the state of the brain that determines output, not 'free will' or magical soul.

You know what I find really interesting? You (and other determinists) cast my view of free will as magical; I cast your view of determinism as magical. You see my perspective on agency as a reflection of an external power; I see your perspective on a mechanistic solution as a reflection of an external power. I see the collected body of human knowledge that builds upon itself as a process that cannot occur without active choice and decision-making... unless you accept a creator myth as a valid and plausible explanation.

 

[Emily Lake]

Invention is built on the framework of past discoveries. Once upon a time we lived in caves and had no idea of how to build houses....our mental software has developed since then...at an ever expanding rate.

Invention is first seeing what exists and imagining something else.

I have never said otherwise....but not only observations of the natural world, but what other people have discovered....knowledge being built over time, transmitted first through observation and oral transmission then the written word, Guilds formed, etc....

I still don't understand how that discovery, knowledge, and transmission through time can occur in a deterministic schema.

 

[Emily Lake]

So you in effect prefer to accept that you may be taking a make-believe story at face value rather than argue that it isn't a make-believe story?!

I think it's naive to assume a non-objective reality.

Look - we make models of the world around us in terms of how we interpret the relationships and dynamics between the things in the world. But that world exists whether you're there to interpret its relationships or not.

Gravity isn't a model. It exists. The mathematical relationship of gravity to mass is a model... but gravity itself is not a model.

Light exists. Light has wavelengths completely irrespective of your belief about it. Our eyeballs have receptors that translate those wavelengths into a spectrum of perceptions. The names we give the arbitrary cohorts of wavelength sets is a model of a concept of color - it's an abstraction. But that in no way at all implies that light is a make-believe story.

The world exists. If you don't take it at face value, and if you assume that the world is a make-believe story... it's liable to result in some easily foreseeable negative outcomes for you.

Thus... your entire approach (while mentally interesting if one is either high or a teenager) is a rabbit hole without end, full of nonsense.

 

[Emily Lake]

For those of you arguing that free will doesn't exist, or that choice is an illusion...

Can you explain how imagination and invention are deterministic? Can you explain how the building of new knowledge upon prior knowledge, and the extrapolation of what is known into the realm of the not-yet-known comes to be? What mechanism separates dream from imagination?

I think imagination and invention are the result of the evolution of existing concepts and ideas. Not by "poofing" them into being like some omnipotent deity would or with the help of some otherwise free will. Intelligence itself is based on the same process as evolution. As there are no truly random events, it is deterministic all the way down to (but probably not including) the quantum level. All that's needed is a system that provides a mechanism for survival of an idea and you have it. I think that's easily managed in the neurobiological structure of a brain. Rather than "free will" I prefer "mutable will". To acknowledge changeability but not without reason. I won't give up that.

Your declaration that there are no truly random events is one that I challenge. It's an assumption on your part.

I don't know enough about dreaming but it seems clear that it involves the imagination. How do you mean they are separate?

You know, I don't see it that way. I tend to think that dreams are semi-random firing of neurons, which the "sapient" part of our brains tries to find pattern and meaning in. Imagination, however, is deliberate. It isn't taking a set of semi-random imagery or impressions and creating a narrative around it; rather it's creating a purposeful narrative and creating imagery and impressions to further enhance that narrative. It's the difference between picking a random selection of words from a dictionary and creating a story from them that kind of makes sense... and sitting down to intentionally write a story to convey a message or meaning.

 

[DBT]

I have never said otherwise....but not only observations of the natural world, but what other people have discovered....knowledge being built over time, transmitted first through observation and oral transmission then the written word, Guilds formed, etc....

What you miss is the real world direction towards an idea that only is accessible to consciousness.

An idea no evolved mechanism could force a human towards since the mechanisms preceded the idea.

You seem to be arguing against a construct of your own making. I think that when you read my posts you see what suits your preconceptions rather what I actually write and mean....very strange indeed.

 

[DBT]

I have never said otherwise....but not only observations of the natural world, but what other people have discovered....knowledge being built over time, transmitted first through observation and oral transmission then the written word, Guilds formed, etc....

I still don't understand how that discovery, knowledge, and transmission through time can occur in a deterministic schema.

Information input and processing power/capacity. You may not have the ability to design and build an ocean going yacht because you don't have the knowledge, but you do have the neural architecture that enables you to learn if you so wish.

The brain of a Chimp, for example, does not have the capacity to learn how to design and build yachts....

Our ancestor who lived in caves and chipped flint had the neural architecture, but simply had not yet acquired the knowledge. That came with time and experience, discovering and learning.

Intelligence and the capacity to learn is not ''free will''

 

[DBT]

You know what I find really interesting? You (and other determinists) cast my view of free will as magical; I cast your view of determinism as magical. You see my perspective on agency as a reflection of an external power; I see your perspective on a mechanistic solution as a reflection of an external power. I see the collected body of human knowledge that builds upon itself as a process that cannot occur without active choice and decision-making... unless you accept a creator myth as a valid and plausible explanation.

The macro world is deterministic, but even if quantum randomness effect do macro scale causality, this still doesn't allow for free will because random interference is not only not a matter of choice, but is likely to disrupt the normal course of decision making.

The other problem being, how do you define free will? What are you talking about? The ability of a brain to make decisions? Something else?

 

[Speakpigeon]

So you in effect prefer to accept that you may be taking a make-believe story at face value rather than argue that it isn't a make-believe story?!

I think it's naive to assume a non-objective reality.

Look - we make models of the world around us in terms of how we interpret the relationships and dynamics between the things in the world. But that world exists whether you're there to interpret its relationships or not.

Gravity isn't a model. It exists. The mathematical relationship of gravity to mass is a model... but gravity itself is not a model.

Light exists. Light has wavelengths completely irrespective of your belief about it. Our eyeballs have receptors that translate those wavelengths into a spectrum of perceptions. The names we give the arbitrary cohorts of wavelength sets is a model of a concept of color - it's an abstraction. But that in no way at all implies that light is a make-believe story.

The world exists. If you don't take it at face value, and if you assume that the world is a make-believe story... it's liable to result in some easily foreseeable negative outcomes for you.

Thus... your entire approach (while mentally interesting if one is either high or a teenager) is a rabbit hole without end, full of nonsense.

That's better.

No need to worry, though. Our belief in the reality of the world out there is truly unshakeable and will always be stronger than any of our theoretical views.

Still, you haven't really provided any objections to my specific arguments. You've just reaffirmed your conviction.

Also, you didn't even try to show how my views would really be nonsensical.

I have been airing my views on this forum for ages now and I still haven't seen any convincing rebuttal.
EB