There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[ruby sparks]

A tree.

 

[Juma]

It's when something isn't alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death

Lol

No, not what does it mean. What is purportedly dead? The word "is?" I assumed one of those was supposed to be "it." What is it (the object of the pronoun) that is being spoken of as something that is dead?

Why do you have to ask this? It is bloody obvious: the bit of wood carved into a shape of a bird. Why is this a problem?

 

[ruby sparks]

Yeah. And if we define ”free will” to mean something that everything has, then everything has free will....
Bloody useless argument, isnt it?

Not necessarily. The definition only referred to persons.

Now, whether a banana has free will if it is not constrained by other bananas may also follow, but no case has been made for it whoops I mean no one has googled a dictionary.

 

[fast]

It's when something isn't alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death

Lol

No, not what does it mean. What is purportedly dead? The word "is?" I assumed one of those was supposed to be "it." What is it (the object of the pronoun) that is being spoken of as something that is dead?

Why do you have to ask this? It is bloody obvious: the bit of wood carved into a shape of a bird. Why is this a problem?

The bit of wood carved into a shape of a bird is not dead. I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. Do you agree? Or, do you think the bit of wood carved into a shape of a bird is dead?

 

[ruby sparks]

free agent
n. a person whose actions are not constrained by others

If we interpret free will along the same logic as is used in the case of free agent, I guess we will have to say that free will is the will of someone which is not constrained by the will of other people.

Rather different and perfectly innocuous and unproblematical.

"Perfectly innocuous and unproblematical" wasn't the phrase which sprang to my mind when reading that definition. It was more like, 'about as useful as a concrete parachute'.

 

[fast]

Why do you have to ask this? It is bloody obvious: the bit of wood carved into a shape of a bird. Why is this a problem?

The bit of wood carved into a shape of a bird is not dead. I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. Do you agree? Or, do you think the bit of wood carved into a shape of a bird is dead?

Oh, that was sneaky

 

[DBT]

There is sufficient evidence to show that will has no independent agency from whatever the brain is doing in terms of consciousness/will formation. The evidence supports brain agency. The expression of consciousness and will as an aspect of consciousness is determined by brain activity,

That is what I was pointing out, that will is not the agency of decision making or action initiation, it is a conscious representation of prompt or urge as a part of conscious experience.....all produced by brain activity.

Sure, like everything else in the universe, 'will' is subject to prior causality.

So, yes, if will is being shaped and formed by prior causal conditions and mechanisms, it makes no sense to classify will as being free.

Once again, without supporting argument, this is another non-sequitur.

I have provided an argument for why 'free'' does not apply to ''will'' - do we define rocks rolling down mountainsides as being 'free rock'' or wave on the ocean as ''free waves'' or the orbits of planets as 'free planets?'' We do not.

We do not because the idea of doing so is absurd, it is not logical....yet some folks are eager to call 'will' - which is just as subject to causality as everything else in the universe, not being autonomous from brain state (which is not chosen).

That double standard is the argument, an argument that is either brushed aside or ignored in favour of what is clearly an ideology, a contradiction in terms, like 'free wave'' or ''free wind'' 'free trees'' ''free snow fall'' ''free tides''......

 

[DBT]

My guess is that DBT is using the term 'free' in the same way one might use the word 'perpetual' or 'random' insofar as there aren't, strictly speaking degrees of such things. That is of course only one way to look at the word 'free' in 'free will'.

When it comes to common usage, I think the average person's conceptions are at best complicated, perhaps even confused, perhaps even contradictory, and most of the time containing as an ingredient the sort of freedom which is very probably illusory.

I understand where DBT is coming from, in other words, and I think it's valid. But I also accept that there are other ways to define and use 'free' and 'free will'.

There are many ways that the words 'free' and 'will' are commonly used. My point about 'will' is related to the actual role and nature of will within the process of cognition and not so much to common usage such as - ''oh, he acted according to his free will'' - which tells us nothing about the nature of cognition and decision making, that is merely a reference to outward, surface appearances...''his'' decision is far more complex than what can be represented by common references and common usage of words and terms.

That is why the issue of 'free will' is something that can only be resolved with neuroscience and brain research, which as the evidence now stands, is not offering much in the way of good news for the idea of free will.

 

[rousseau]

My guess is that DBT is using the term 'free' in the same way one might use the word 'perpetual' or 'random' insofar as there aren't, strictly speaking degrees of such things. That is of course only one way to look at the word 'free' in 'free will'.

When it comes to common usage, I think the average person's conceptions are at best complicated, perhaps even confused, perhaps even contradictory, and most of the time containing as an ingredient the sort of freedom which is very probably illusory.

I understand where DBT is coming from, in other words, and I think it's valid. But I also accept that there are other ways to define and use 'free' and 'free will'.

There are many ways that the words 'free' and 'will' are commonly used. My point about 'will' is related to the actual role and nature of will within the process of cognition and not so much to common usage such as - ''oh, he acted according to his free will'' - which tells us nothing about the nature of cognition and decision making, that is merely a reference to outward, surface appearances...''his'' decision is far more complex than what can be represented by common references and common usage of words and terms.

That is why the issue of 'free will' is something that can only be resolved with neuroscience and brain research, which as the evidence now stands, is not offering much in the way of good news for the idea of free will.

How did the concept of 'free will' arise in the first place? Why did it arise? What do the words 'free' and 'will' signify when used in this way? If we have no free will, why do we have a sense of free-ness that led to the term?

Maybe, given the above, it's not that we don't have free-will, but rather our conception of what free-will is, and why the concept arose is mistaken.

Ok, there's no such thing as a ghost in the machine, flicking switches, easy enough to agree there, but if we can agree that this isn't a part of physical reality then why are we arguing that this is the source of the term? Why is a ghost in the machine the bench-mark to prove we are free beings, or the term free-will has any meaning?

Perhaps the ghost is a primitive rationalisation of our concept of freeness, but even if not there the sense of freeness and free will is still there.

So what is free will in practice? What is it that we are sensing to describe our experience that way? I'd argue it's not very complicated. Living is the act of willing, and we are free to will. In layman's terms, we are free beings in the world who are constantly exerting themselves, hence the sense of freeness.

 

[ruby sparks]

So what is free will in practice? What is it that we are sensing to describe our experience that way? I'd argue it's not very complicated. Living is the act of willing, and we are free to will. In layman's terms, we are free beings in the world who are constantly exerting themselves, hence the sense of freeness.

At the start of that you ask about free will (apparently by assuming we have it). In the middle is a bald assertion or two. By the end you're talking about a sense of free will. Isn't that a segue?

Personally, I don't think we have the sort of free will we generally and instinctively think we have. I think it's an illusion.

If we want to describe what capacities we DO have, still calling them free will is arguably a fudge.

 

[ruby sparks]

What worries me slightly is this. A lot of us here would say there's no god. But with this free will thing, it's as if some of us are saying the equivalent of, 'look, if we define god this way, then he exists'.

 

[rousseau]

So what is free will in practice? What is it that we are sensing to describe our experience that way? I'd argue it's not very complicated. Living is the act of willing, and we are free to will. In layman's terms, we are free beings in the world who are constantly exerting themselves, hence the sense of freeness.

At the start of that you ask about free will (apparently by assuming we have it). In the middle is a bald assertion or two. By the end you're talking about a sense of free will. Isn't that a segue?

Personally, I don't think we have the sort of free will we generally and instinctively think we have. I think it's an illusion.

If we want to describe what capacities we DO have, still calling them free will is arguably a fudge.

If you don't want to call our capabilities free-will, fair enough, I'm open to that.

My point is only that linguistically the term 'free-will' exists, and so it must signify a real, concrete phenomenon that humans experience, even if that real concrete phenomenon is not 'a ghost in the machine pulling levers'.

And so what I'm suggesting is that our definition of the term as it exists is inaccurate, in the same way the folk definition of 'mind' is inaccurate. So when you define 'free-will' as something that it's actually not, and then claim we don't have it, you're not actually saying anything meaningful.

So the task is defining what free-will means, which is where we reach the limits of modern science.

 

[rousseau]

So what is free will in practice? What is it that we are sensing to describe our experience that way? I'd argue it's not very complicated. Living is the act of willing, and we are free to will. In layman's terms, we are free beings in the world who are constantly exerting themselves, hence the sense of freeness.

At the start of that you ask about free will (apparently by assuming we have it). In the middle is a bald assertion or two. By the end you're talking about a sense of free will. Isn't that a segue?

Personally, I don't think we have the sort of free will we generally and instinctively think we have. I think it's an illusion.

If we want to describe what capacities we DO have, still calling them free will is arguably a fudge.

If you don't want to call our capabilities free-will, fair enough, I'm open to that.

My point is only that linguistically the term 'free-will' exists, and so it must signify a real, concrete phenomenon that humans experience, even if that real concrete phenomenon is not 'a ghost in the machine pulling levers'.

And so what I'm suggesting is that our definition of the term as it exists is inaccurate, in the same way the folk definition of 'mind' is inaccurate. So when you define 'free-will' as something that it's actually not, and then claim we don't have it, you're not actually saying anything meaningful.

So the task is defining what free-will means, which is where we reach the limits of modern science.

And on that note the term likely arose due to our sense of freeness, in the same way the term 'mind' arose due to our sense of being able to mind our environment. Maybe some physical entity in the classical sense of the two terms doesn't exist, but it doesn't mean freely willing and minding aren't part of our everyday experience.

 

[DBT]

What worries me slightly is this. A lot of us here would say there's no god. But with this free will thing, it's as if some of us are saying the equivalent of, 'look, if we define god this way, then he exists'.

That's it. It's as if there's a strong emotional attachment to the idea of having 'free will' even if the believer has no idea to what he or she is referring to.....apart from the feeling of conscious agency in terms of making decisions - which has been shown to be an illusion created by the disconnect between conscious experience and its production mechanism, the brain. So the term free will just comes down to semantics, not something actual.

 

[DBT]

My guess is that DBT is using the term 'free' in the same way one might use the word 'perpetual' or 'random' insofar as there aren't, strictly speaking degrees of such things. That is of course only one way to look at the word 'free' in 'free will'.

When it comes to common usage, I think the average person's conceptions are at best complicated, perhaps even confused, perhaps even contradictory, and most of the time containing as an ingredient the sort of freedom which is very probably illusory.

I understand where DBT is coming from, in other words, and I think it's valid. But I also accept that there are other ways to define and use 'free' and 'free will'.

There are many ways that the words 'free' and 'will' are commonly used. My point about 'will' is related to the actual role and nature of will within the process of cognition and not so much to common usage such as - ''oh, he acted according to his free will'' - which tells us nothing about the nature of cognition and decision making, that is merely a reference to outward, surface appearances...''his'' decision is far more complex than what can be represented by common references and common usage of words and terms.

That is why the issue of 'free will' is something that can only be resolved with neuroscience and brain research, which as the evidence now stands, is not offering much in the way of good news for the idea of free will.

How did the concept of 'free will' arise in the first place? Why did it arise? What do the words 'free' and 'will' signify when used in this way? If we have no free will, why do we have a sense of free-ness that led to the term?

Maybe, given the above, it's not that we don't have free-will, but rather our conception of what free-will is, and why the concept arose is mistaken.

Ok, there's no such thing as a ghost in the machine, flicking switches, easy enough to agree there, but if we can agree that this isn't a part of physical reality then why are we arguing that this is the source of the term? Why is a ghost in the machine the bench-mark to prove we are free beings, or the term free-will has any meaning?

Perhaps the ghost is a primitive rationalisation of our concept of freeness, but even if not there the sense of freeness and free will is still there.

So what is free will in practice? What is it that we are sensing to describe our experience that way? I'd argue it's not very complicated. Living is the act of willing, and we are free to will. In layman's terms, we are free beings in the world who are constantly exerting themselves, hence the sense of freeness.

It probably arose, as you suggest, from the perception of conscious agency, the ability to think and decide and to act. This assumption becomes questionable when that perceived ability to make conscious decisions begins to break down due to brain dysfunction revealing the actual agent, brain state, not will, not consciousness, not the ability to make decisions, which is decision making, not will and not free will.

 

[fromderinside]

The bit of wood carved into a shape of a bird is not dead. I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. Do you agree? Or, do you think the bit of wood carved into a shape of a bird is dead?

As material it is dead, as a tree it is dead, as a block of wood it is dead. As a craved bird it is not alive. Carving gave it an identity, but even so, it too is dead even though it remains a wooden bird.

 

[The AntiChris]

Sure, like everything else in the universe, 'will' is subject to prior causality.

Once again, without supporting argument, this is another non-sequitur.

I have provided an argument for why 'free'' does not apply to ''will'' - do we define rocks rolling down mountainsides as being 'free rock'' or wave on the ocean as ''free waves'' or the orbits of planets as 'free planets?'' We do not.

We do not because the idea of doing so is absurd, it is not logical....yet some folks are eager to call 'will' - which is just as subject to causality as everything else in the universe,

So, if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that it's absurd to use the word 'free' to describe any entity which is subject to causality (i.e according to you, nothing in the universe can sensibly be described as 'free')

What you appear to be saying is not that you object to a specific use of the word free (i.e. free will), but that you object to any use of the word 'free'.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're absolutely right.

Here is an example of the use of "free" that doesn't refer to deterministic causality:

free agent
n. a person whose actions are not constrained by others

If we interpret free will along the same logic as is used in the case of free agent, I guess we will have to say that free will is the will of someone which is not constrained by the will of other people.

Rather different and perfectly innocuous and unproblematical.

Even DBT would have free will.

Maybe that's where the problem really is, though. People like DBT are free to deny free will exists at all.
EB

Yeah. And if we define ”free will” to mean something that everything has, then everything has free will....
Bloody useless argument, isnt it?

No, I just disagree.

Anybody who is in some way under the influence of somebody else doesn't have free will in this sense.

This would include people who have to obey orders, feeble-minded people who would jump out of the window if told to do so, and so on.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oops!
EB

 

[DBT]

Sure, like everything else in the universe, 'will' is subject to prior causality.

Once again, without supporting argument, this is another non-sequitur.

I have provided an argument for why 'free'' does not apply to ''will'' - do we define rocks rolling down mountainsides as being 'free rock'' or wave on the ocean as ''free waves'' or the orbits of planets as 'free planets?'' We do not.

We do not because the idea of doing so is absurd, it is not logical....yet some folks are eager to call 'will' - which is just as subject to causality as everything else in the universe,

So, if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that it's absurd to use the word 'free' to describe any entity which is subject to causality (i.e according to you, nothing in the universe can sensibly be described as 'free')

What you appear to be saying is not that you object to a specific use of the word free (i.e. free will), but that you object to any use of the word 'free'.

Depends on context and reference; the dog is free from his chain, you are free to write a reply, you are free to get a drink, etc, being specific referencrs to a certain condition, unimpeded....the rock is in free fall, unimpeded, nothing to stop it's motion. You are free to stand and walk to your fridge and get a drink, nothing stands in your way, you are unimpeded, we are free to act, nothing impedes our intended actions and so on.