There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[Speakpigeon]

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'.

You would have to argue your case.

I think we shouldn't take forums as the place where meaning is decided. I have shown how the word "free" is used in various context, at least according to perfectly respectable dictionaries. And I think this is a good indication that what most people think of as free will is perfectly innocuous.

This also shows in my view that interpreting "free will" as meaning "free from the constraints of the deterministic laws of nature" doesn't reflect how most people use "free will".

And, basically, it's two small group of ideologically motivated people, on both sides of the argument, who are fighting a useless battle against each other to try and redefine what we think of as free will.

I would agree with you that my posts are very unlikely to have any impact on these people. I don't mind that at all. They are so few, and never very convincing.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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, 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''......

We don't define rocks as being free. And nobody is defining human will as being free.

Instead, we just use the word "free" freely in combination with all sorts of other words to mean all sorts of things, none of which happens to mean "free from the constraints of the deterministic laws of nature"! Doesn't that tell you something?

So, let's just repeat myself here...

So, I think what happens here is that FDI and DBT, among other potential serial offenders, choose to interpret compound expression A + B literally, i.e. they choose to assume that the meaning of A + B is A's meaning plus B's meaning. In the case of free will, this leads inevitably (no freedom here) to take free literally and therefore conclude there's no possible free will in a deterministic universe.

Doing this should lead also inevitably to dismiss all expressions starting with the word "free" (at least if we assume we're in a deterministic universe).

So, the prisoner released out of prison still won't be a free man. Sorry, love, it's tough, but.

Also, even if somebody tells you, "you're free to go", don't believe that for a moment. You won't ever be free to go.

Also, the West has for years shouted from the roof-tops about its free press, but we know better, don't we?

That's not all. Sick or not, you won't ever be free of disease. Of any disease! You think you feel good now? Well, maybe you need to see a doctor, before it's too late.

And whatever the government will tell you, nothing is ever free of taxes, even if it's just the case there is no tax.

Beware on the highway, too, even though the lane you're on is clear and unobstructed, it won't be a free lane. So, remain vigilant, or maybe just switch to another lane, one which will be more obviously non-free.

And, pupils the world over, if you think you can enjoy free time between classes, then, think again, there's no such a thing as free time.

Ah, and, yes, scientists! Scientists the world over, you too, you think you're so smart you know there are atoms with free energy levels? You triple idiots! There is no such a thing!

I guess that will do.

Well, apparently, even that isn't enough!
EB

 

[The AntiChris]

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.

I don't claim to know what most people think about free will.

Of course, many people may genuinely believe we have a kind of irrational libertarian free will (possibly as a result of exposure to religious views). In this sense of the term, people either have or do not have free will.

But there are many people, like me, who have never understood the 'term free' in this way and have always used the term to describe actions performed with or without morally relevant causes in order to ascribe moral culpability. In this sense it is specicfic actions which are performed with (culpable) or without (not culpable) 'free will'.

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'.

This view is a very uncharitable reading of the compatibilist position. As I've attempted to point out, many of of us have only ever understood the term free will in its non-religious, rational, compatibilist sense - we don't redefine the term.

 

[fast]

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.

There's deception in the air. I get the wood is dead bit. What I don't get is the as surely as part. It had the ring of as sure as a metal bird is dead. I picked up on the not alive vs dead conflation. That's why I called it out. I think the fact the comment just happened to include wood was happenchance.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Then we just disagree and I also think your view doesn't reflect what most people believe.

Me, I'm quite sure we exactly have the kind of free will we think we have and it's not "will which is free from the deterministic laws of nature", which we just couldn't care less about.

I am free to scratch my nose right now. Isn't that true?

And that's really all what most people mean by free will.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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'.

This isn't the way language works. We use words more freely than ideologues would have it. In fact, we couldn't even stop ourselves if we wanted to.

So, look again here how the word "free" is really used.

So, I think what happens here is that FDI and DBT, among other potential serial offenders, choose to interpret compound expression A + B literally, i.e. they choose to assume that the meaning of A + B is A's meaning plus B's meaning. In the case of free will, this leads inevitably (no freedom here) to take free literally and therefore conclude there's no possible free will in a deterministic universe.

Doing this should lead also inevitably to dismiss all expressions starting with the word "free" (at least if we assume we're in a deterministic universe).

So, the prisoner released out of prison still won't be a free man. Sorry, love, it's tough, but.

Also, even if somebody tells you, "you're free to go", don't believe that for a moment. You won't ever be free to go.

Also, the West has for years shouted from the roof-tops about its free press, but we know better, don't we?

That's not all. Sick or not, you won't ever be free of disease. Of any disease! You think you feel good now? Well, maybe you need to see a doctor, before it's too late.

And whatever the government will tell you, nothing is ever free of taxes, even if it's just the case there is no tax.

Beware on the highway, too, even though the lane you're on is clear and unobstructed, it won't be a free lane. So, remain vigilant, or maybe just switch to another lane, one which will be more obviously non-free.

And, pupils the world over, if you think you can enjoy free time between classes, then, think again, there's no such a thing as free time.

Ah, and, yes, scientists! Scientists the world over, you too, you think you're so smart you know there are atoms with free energy levels? You triple idiots! There is no such a thing!

So, do you think any of these could lead to admitting that god exists?

Me, I don't think so.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

That isn't even true.

For a start, it would be just impossible to prove that we don't have something like "conscious agency in terms of making decisions".

And specifically, there are zero scientific experiment proving we don't have the kind of free will we think we have.

All there is are experiments proving that what scientists think other people think of as free will doesn't exist.

Impressively pathetic.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

So, what would be in the way of me scratching my nose if I want to scratch my nose?

Or what is in the way of me scratching my nose freely when I do in fact scratch my nose?

Beats me.
EB

 

[The AntiChris]

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;

There's no objective fact of the matter which determines in which "context and reference" it's valid to use the word 'free' - that's not how language works.

All you're doing is imposing your own arbitrary distinction. You simply don't have a rational argument for insisting that the word 'free' cannot be used as a description of 'will'.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

I don't claim to know what most people think about free will.

Of course, many people may genuinely believe we have a kind of irrational libertarian free will (possibly as a result of exposure to religious views). In this sense of the term, people either have or do not have free will.

But there are many people, like me, who have never understood the 'term free' in this way and have always used the term to describe actions performed with or without morally relevant causes in order to ascribe moral culpability. In this sense it is specicfic actions which are performed with (culpable) or without (not culpable) 'free will'.

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'.

This view is a very uncharitable reading of the compatibilist position. As I've attempted to point out, many of of us have only ever understood the term free will in its non-religious, rational, compatibilist sense - we don't redefine the term.

There are a few studies which shed at least some light on what 'the person in the street' thinks free will is, and the picture which emerges is that it's often libertarian or libertarian-esque, often mixed up with something that seems like a version of compatibilism, and in fact in some situations, that we don't have any free will at all. In other words, it's a mish-mash, which is what we might expect it to be, because the 'person in the street' is mostly using folk psychology and hasn't spent enough time doing detailed philosophy.

I confess that I don't, really, understand what compatibilist free will actually boils down to. To me, no offense intended, it's a fudge (and a borderline oxymoron to say that it's compatible with determinism), and it smacks of trying to rescue free will, when it might be more forthright to agree that we don't have it and see what that entails.

That said, I accept that people are entitled to call something x or y using any label they choose. To be honest, it actually does puzzle me as to why you want to use the term.

- - - Updated - - -

There's no objective fact of the matter which determines in which "context and reference" it's valid to use the word 'free' - that's not how language works.

All you're doing is imposing your own arbitrary distinction. You simply don't have a rational argument for insisting that the word 'free' cannot be used as a description of 'will'.

That's not really fair. The same could be said of you. It's a preference. There is a rational argument for both.

Personally, I've never read what I consider to be a good rational argument for compatibilist free will, but that's me personally.

Either way, because of its historical and folk psychology baggage, free will is arguably a loaded term and I go back to my analogy with defining god so it still exists, however uncharitable that seems to you.

However, if I accept that you and at least some other compatibilists have only ever understood the term a certain way (though I do wonder what the capacities were that you thought you had before you formally encountered the term and the arguments, such as when you were aged 9 for example), let me ask you a question. Why should I use the term freely-willed for a decision which is already determined? Allowing for the additional possibility of random.

I'm not going to ram anything down your throat, and at the end of the day you can go on using the term, but just make me a case as to why I or anyone else should too.

 

[The AntiChris]

I confess that I don't, really, understand what compatibilist free will actually boils down to.

But apparently this doesn't stop you (and, to be fair, many/most hard determinists) from making vaguely insulting comments about compatibilism.

For your edification: Compatibilism

There's no objective fact of the matter which determines in which "context and reference" it's valid to use the word 'free' - that's not how language works.

All you're doing is imposing your own arbitrary distinction. You simply don't have a rational argument for insisting that the word 'free' cannot be used as a description of 'will'.

That's not really fair. The same could be said of you.

How so? I'm not advocating any specific usage. I'm simply objecting to the arbitrary claim that the word free cannot be used to describe 'will'.

It's a preference.

No. It's an objection to special-case pleading.

Let me ask you a question. Why should we use the term freely-willed for a decision which is already determined? Allowing for the additional possibility of random.

There is no reason we should.

But neither is there any rational reason for insisting that the word 'free' cannot be applied to 'will'.

 

[ruby sparks]

But apparently this doesn't stop you (and, to be fair, many/most hard determinists) from making vaguely insulting comments about compatibilism.

That's not really fair. The same could be said of you.

How so? I'm not advocating any specific usage. I'm simply objecting to the arbitrary claim that the word free cannot be used to describe 'will'.

It's a preference.

No. It's an objection to special-case pleading.

Let me ask you a question. Why should we use the term freely-willed for a decision which is already determined? Allowing for the additional possibility of random.

There is no reason we should.

But neither is there any rational reason for insisting that the word 'free' cannot be applied to 'will'.

No sorry, with respect, that's wrong. When you say there is no rational reason, or that it's merely arbitrary, you are dismissing your non-preferred option as having no rational reason.

And yet you also admit there is no reason we should use the term.

I'm confused.

 

[ruby sparks]

In a nutshell, what is it about someone arguing that it's the wrong term which bothers you so much that you have to say that such a position has no rational reasoning or is arbitrary?

I don't get it.

 

[ruby sparks]

I mean, seriously, by all means make a case as to why you think it is the right term, but surely don't say that others who disagree are just being arbitrary or without argument or reason?

 

[The AntiChris]

No sorry, with respect, that's wrong. When you say there is no rational reason, or that it's merely arbitrary, you are dismissing your non-preferred option as having no rational reason.

And yet you also admit there is no reason we should use the term.

I'm confused.

Of course you are. You think I'm arguing for a specific usage. I'm not.

I'm objecting to a bad argument - the claim that the word free cannot be used to describe 'will'. This is just special pleading. We use the word 'free' to describe many aspects of our (adequately) deterministic world.

 

[ruby sparks]

No sorry, with respect, that's wrong. When you say there is no rational reason, or that it's merely arbitrary, you are dismissing your non-preferred option as having no rational reason.

And yet you also admit there is no reason we should use the term.

I'm confused.

Of course you are. You think I'm arguing for a specific usage. I'm not.

I'm objecting to a bad argument - the claim that the word free cannot be used to describe 'will'. This is just special pleading. We use the word 'free' to describe many aspects of our (adequately) deterministic world.

You're saying that the case for not using the word is arbitrary and without reason.

 

[ruby sparks]

Nobody is going to come round to your house and force you to stop using the term. What you call 'insisting' is just having a position, and being ready to defend it. And to say that it's arbitrary and without reason just isn't accurate.

I would like to hear a case as to why it's the right term. And don't link me to articles about or by compatibilists. I've probably read most of them already. I mean you.

 

[The AntiChris]

You're saying that the case for not using the word is arbitrary and without reason.

No I'm certainly not.

I'm saying the claim that the word 'free' cannot be applied to 'will' because 'will' is subject to deterministic causation is fallacious reasoning (otherwise we'd have to expunge the word from the English language).

This was the reasoning DBT used in post #621 which started this exchange.

 

[The AntiChris]

I would like to hear a case as to why it's the right term.

I'm not arguing that it is. I'm just objecting to the claim that it is never the right term.

And don't link me to articles about or by compatibilists. .

You're the one who admitted you didn't understand compatibilism.

I'm not arguing for compatibilism. I'm simply presenting it as one alternative to libertarian counter-causal free will.

 

[ruby sparks]

All you're doing is imposing your own arbitrary distinction. You simply don't have a rational argument for insisting that the word 'free' cannot be used as a description of 'will'.

On the contrary, the definition isn't arbitrary and there is a rational argument for it.