There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[ruby sparks]

Of course it's not if the claim is irrational, arbitrary or lacking in reasoned support (i.e. if it's a bad argument).

Indeed. If.

Unfortunately, you didn't make a convincing case that it was any of those things. You just said it was. I can tell you now that the claim that free will is the wrong term for human capacities is anything but arbitrary, irrational or lacking in reasoned argument. That's just a fact. Whether you personally agree with the reasoning is irrelevant. There is de facto a non-arbitrary rational argument for it. Capiche yet?

The validity of any argument I'm criticising is not dependent on my ability to come up with an alternative argument. A bad argument is a bad argument regardless.

Again, indeed. And I never said it was dependent on your apparent unwillingness to come up with an alternative case. And I never commented on your ability either, but if you're hinting that it's beyond your abilities to make such a case, that does sort of figure.

 

[ruby sparks]

Calling other people's claims arbitrary, irrational, incoherent or lacking in reasoning is just having a cheap shot, imo, especially if you're not prepared to make a case for an alternative. The topic deserves better.

That's the way it usually goes. Sadly.

What's all the more puzzling and ironic is that there is a case for an alternative. I myself could make a half-decent case for the appropriateness of the term free will for the human capacities we're talking about. I just don't prefer it, on balance. To me, it's the wrong term.

 

[The AntiChris]

I can tell you now that the claim that free will is the wrong term for human capacities is anything but arbitrary, irrational or lacking in reasoned argument. That's just a fact .

Really?

Is this an example of your idea of a "convincing case"?

The validity of any argument I'm criticising is not dependent on my ability to come up with an alternative argument. A bad argument is a bad argument regardless.

Again, indeed. And I never said it was dependent on your apparent unwillingness to come up with an alternative case.

Once again, really? You said:

Calling other people's claims arbitrary, irrational, incoherent or lacking in reasoning is just having a cheap shot, imo, especially if you're not prepared to make a case for an alternative.

Are you seriously suggesting that you're not implying here that I need to make the case for an alternative before my criticism can be taken seriously?

 

[Speakpigeon]

The expression "free will" is in use in the general population. People don't get to use it very often, if at all, but they still do. You can abstain if you have some reason for doing that. Me, I don't think there's any good reason. When in Rome, do as the Romans do, and that's a very good reason for me to use the term "free will" given that I don't see any good reason not to.
EB

Fair enough. Although that is a sort of 'if it's not (apparently) broken or at least working ok, no need to fix it' or a 'status quo' approach and not especially progressive.

I think that you don't get the main point here which is that the expression people use for talking about whatever it is they think they have just happens to be "free will". In that, there's zero difference with all the other very many expressions people use. There's no good reason that I should make a particular case about "free will" when I don't about "free fall", "free mason", "free money", "freedom of speech", "free verse", "free enterprise", "free radical", "free trade", "free jazz", "free lance" etc. I would also feel comfortable talking about human agency, and as comfortable as I am talking about free will. I couldn't care less. I'm not in the business of mending what's broken in the English language. I'm just happy to use it as best as I can like the natives do it as long as it is broadly standard use. That's what I do but I'm quite sure it's also what very nearly everybody does. The debate on "free will" is very nearly a unique case and then only a very small fraction of the population is motivated to argue about free will.

Whilst I definitely don't suggest that if society ditched their intuitive ideas about free will that everything in the garden would be rosy, a case could be made that (a) fairly radical reappraisal could do a lot to stem or ameliorate some of the historically most unsavoury aspects of human nature, specifically the urge for retribution and (often bloodthirsty) revenge and a stronger focus on the causes of undesirable behaviour and on prevention rather than cure

That would be a legitimate motivation. However, I don't believe for a second that dismissing free will as illusory would improve the situation in these respects. If you want to improve the way people behave you'll have to find the proper way to address the problem. First of all, dismissing free will as illusory won't stop people believing they have something they just call "free will" and freely talking about it without even suspecting that they should see it as problematic. It would just be a waste of time and money. Also, lots of people are apparently trying to improve human behaviour in various ways but I'm not sure that it does any good or that whether it does could be empirically determined. Your idea may be a good intention but if you want to dismiss free will as illusory in a deterministic universe then you may want to dismiss the idea that human intentions could really be good at all for the same reason. Let's try to be consistent if we can.

(b) and that the gradual weakening in notions of free will that has taken place in certain 'civilised' countries (perhaps especially in courtrooms) in recent history, has already shown itself to have such benefits ('enlightenments' if you will) at least in part.

And that's a perfectly legitimate way to do it. As I see it, what people do is they negotiate pragmatically what should be our notion of free will, but this time not on the basis of some ideological a priori. Crime is a practical problem and society needs to be able to assess responsibility in a consistent and effective way. No issue here but also nothing to do with the debate on free will, except of course that the small number of ideologues with an opinion on free will will inevitably interfere with the necessary conversation about responsibility in crime. Too bad.

So there's one suggested reason. You don't have to find it compelling. Plus, there might be costs as well as benefits, notions of free will being apparently quite useful in many ways.

I think you don't get the main point here, again. I don't know that anybody accused of any serious crime has ever been relaxed anywhere in the whole world on the motive that free will is illusory in a deterministic universe. The evolution of our notion of free will is motivated by practical issues, such as the management of crime, and that's how it should be.

My main reason though is personal curiosity. I have no big plans for society or for changing the world for the better (or worse). I just like to try to know and understand myself and how I work, what life is and so on. As such, I rather like letting go of illusions generally, as much as practicable. This is the case regardless of whether it's helpful to me (as in increasing my happiness) as I crawl along the mortal coil. To me, the idea of saying "I probably have free will (to scratch my nose or whatever) because it feels like I do" is almost anathema to either a spirit of enquiry or a rigorous search for understanding, and as a result I can hardly even imagine myself saying it.

Me, I can't imagine why the fact the most people talk about something they have as "free will" should in any way be an obstacle to enquiring minds, yours or that of anybody.

Others might prefer just to take their sense of free will at face value. That's ok and arguably pragmatic. We do have to get on with life in any case and will probably never be sure if we have free will or not, not least because even agreeing on a definition seems beyond us.

As I see it, only a very small fraction of the population have any trouble using the expression "free will" competently. It's not even a question of being pragmatic. Most people don't even know there's a controversy about free will and they will use the expression without even having to think about it.

In an ideal discussion, imo, we would just leave aside the argument about what term to use and focus on trying to describe and understand the capacities we do have, whatever we might call them. That said, I do rather like calling them 'human agency' myself.

I wouldn't mind using "human agency" if everybody did it but I suspect it's not adequate for what people think of as free will. You'd need a qualifier such as "autonomous" or some such. So, I guess, "free" is good enough in my view, like it is for all the expressions using it I just reminded you of above.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

...so I hesitate to take the easy way out and just claim 'we are un-free beings with no self-control'. I think the reality is a little more complex than that.

I find a good way to put it is as follows. A human being is a biological machine (or a meat robot or a series of interacting meat robots) that can, amongst other things, make decisions and choices, some of which appear to feature in its consciousness, others not (the role of consciousness is not clear). It has developed/evolved a capacity to have a sensation it calls self and it has the sensation that this self can freely instigate and enact (some) decisions and choices, whereas in actual fact it's likely that not only is this sense of self largely illusory, but its supposed capacities to freely instigate decisions and choices is also a user illusion, with 'self' being the 'user'.

 

[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

That the brain must necessarily process information before conscious representation is not only supported by evidence, based on the realities of physics, it cannot be otherwise.

And that's definitely not the same as showing that we don't have the kind of free will people think they have, or that we don't have "conscious agency in terms of making decisions".

You should try to understand what people say instead of just going on about the routine of delivering your mantra.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

I wouldn't mind using "human agency" if everybody did it but I suspect it's not adequate for what people think of as free will. You'd need a qualifier such as "autonomous" or some such. So, I guess, "free" is good enough in my view, like it is for all the expressions using it I just reminded you of above.
EB

I generally agree with most of what you said so I won't quibble.

I'll just throw in a couple of things in response to your last bit.

I too suspect that the term human agency might not be adequate for what people think of as free will, but to me that's a very good reason to use the former term, if you see what I mean.

But I must stress again that my main interest is not societal, it's personal curiosity, about 'how I function'. You can get me to talk about societal aspects, but it's not my main interest.

So at that level, whilst I agree that the term 'free' is often used, it seems to be for stuff which is not in the final analysis free at all. There's quite a few cases where the usage is either colloquial, or a hangover from our folk psychology notions. In other cases, it can be used in a technical sense, perhaps even by scientists. I'm guessing though, that even there, if pressed, the user might accept that what they are describing is 'not really free'.

(Also, other uses of the word free do not necessarily, of themselves, automatically warrant a particular use before the term will, or to describe human decision-making capactities).

And that's the issue, imo. I don't want to use a word for something it doesn't properly, accurately describe. Why not? Because, it might mean I'm not thinking straight about something, not getting to the bottom of it. And the problem with that is that if it's the case, or if I'm at least partly under an illusion or merely mistaken, then maybe I'm missing out on something important (or at the very least something fascinating). Maybe I personally am not gaining an enlightenment or a piece of wisdom or understanding. I do admit that at the times my sense of or belief in my own free will and that of others weakens temporarily, I find it easier to be more compassionate and less retributive (and this effect has in fact been studied).

 

[ruby sparks]

To add, speakpigeon, I do accept that there are pros and cons to having a belief in free will. Perhaps the pros outweigh the cons. I don't know. But I do honestly think that one of the toxic consequences is that a belief in free will, especially a strong belief or a belief in a strong version of free will, can apparently, it seems, cause humans to be less forgiving and less compassionate, not only to others but to themselves/ourselves. It may be optimistic to suggest that a weakening of our beliefs in free will would necessarily improve us in this regard, but at the same time, it's not daft either, appearing to be borne out in lab studies, and more to the point, it has to some extent already been and is happening, gradually, in certain places.

I also think it's fair to say that by and large, notions of free will are strongest in 'western' cultures, perhaps most especially in the USA, for a variety of historical and cultural reasons. By comparison, some 'eastern' cultures have historically had a weaker conception of it (and a weaker conception of self also, which I consider not unrelated). Whether this is overall a good thing or a bad thing, again I don't know, but it might be useful to try to take on board the better parts of one or both belief systems, or philosophies or paradigms if you prefer, since it wouldn't have to be a case of either or.

 

[DBT]

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.

I'm going to continue a bit. In my opinion we have to do a couple things:

1) Make the mental shift from 'I have a mind' to 'I am minding', 'I have conscious agency' to 'I am a conscious agent', 'I have free-will' to 'I am free to will'

The problem with that being, it is the brain that forms will in response to stimuli.....so to say ''I am free to will' suggests that conscious experience is the 'I' that ''wills'' - which is not the case. Brain state at any given instance in time equals output in terms of conscious experience. We are what a brain is doing in response to inputs and past experience through the medium of neural architecture.

2) Determine what is meant by 'free' and 'will'. e.g. What does it mean to be a free body in the world? Where does the word 'will' come from and what does it signify?

Context usually determines the meaning of a word....so the question; free from what, free to do what? Plus, what is will, how is will formed, what is its role and function.

 

[DBT]

That the brain must necessarily process information before conscious representation is not only supported by evidence, based on the realities of physics, it cannot be otherwise.

And that's definitely not the same as showing that we don't have the kind of free will people think they have, or that we don't have "conscious agency in terms of making decisions".

You should try to understand what people say instead of just going on about the routine of delivering your mantra.
EB

People use the term free will in reference to decisions made without duress or force. It's just common usage of the term. Common usage doesn't establish how decisions are actually made or how will arises or its role and function.

It's just general usage, it doesn't dig deeper than surface appearances....a decision was made without coercion, If that's all it takes to establish the nature and truth of something we'd be drowning in gods and nature spirits, witches, warlocks and voodoo.

If semantic references are sufficient, there would be no need for questioning, no need for debate, no need for research and no need to be concerned, God would be in His heaven with all the angels and saints and Jesus, the Hindus would have their Brahma and Shiva and Shakti and the Muslims would rejoice in their Allah and nobody would need to question because the power of the Word creates reality, eh, Mr EB?

 

[DBT]

Calling other people's claims arbitrary, irrational, incoherent or lacking in reasoning is just having a cheap shot, imo, especially if you're not prepared to make a case for an alternative. The topic deserves better.

That's the way it usually goes. Sadly.

What's all the more puzzling and ironic is that there is a case for an alternative. I myself could make a half-decent case for the appropriateness of the term free will for the human capacities we're talking about. I just don't prefer it, on balance. To me, it's the wrong term.

Sure, a bit of creative application of semantics and one can argue for anything, it's the references that becomes a problem, the nature of decision making, the nature and role of will, the nature of consciousness....so, yeah, based on all that, it's the wrong term.

Casual usage is another matter.

 

[DBT]

I'm simply objecting to bad arguments. In this instance, I object to the unargued assumption that the word 'free' can only mean free from all deterministic causality when applied to 'will' (this particular meaning of 'free' is unique to the free will debate).

Apparently you don't understand the argument. I even gave an outline of the use of the word 'free' in relation to specific conditions....unimpeded, unrestricted, you are free to reply, free to get a drink, a prisoner has been freed from his cell, the boy slides freely down the water shoot, and so on.

Specific conditions. Now if you want to formally define ''will'' as being ''free'' - unimpeded, unrestricted, you need to define your terms and references, explaining what you mean by 'will' - its role and function - and give an account of why ''will'' is indeed ''free''

Common usage doesn't explain the nature of will or decision making, yet alone establish the credentials of 'free will' - it's just common usage, God, gods, angels, spirits, ghosts, goblins, gnomes, witches, warlocks.....

But instead you sit on your high horse and moan about 'bad arguments' - to all appearances not understanding the argument being put forward.

Which is not to say it's my argument. It is just the standard argument against free will...basically that brain condition determines decision making and behaviour, including conscious experience, and not 'will' or 'free will'

Whatever you are thinking, deciding, feeling or doing is the work of the brain, not 'will' - which plays a role as a part of consciousness but is not the decision maker.

 

[ruby sparks]

What's all the more puzzling and ironic is that there is a case for an alternative. I myself could make a half-decent case for the appropriateness of the term free will for the human capacities we're talking about. I just don't prefer it, on balance. To me, it's the wrong term.

Sure, a bit of creative application of semantics and one can argue for anything, it's the references that becomes a problem, the nature of decision making, the nature and role of will, the nature of consciousness....so, yeah, based on all that, it's the wrong term.

Casual usage is another matter.

Whilst I generally agree with you on this topic, I do think it's more than creative semantics to use the term 'free will' for the actual capacities that humans have. I think it's valid, if the person using the term clearly means a certain thing (effectively that we have some freedom or certain degrees of freedom and that the word 'free' does not have to mean completely or absolutely free) and is understood to mean that certain thing.

However, I do think that some compatibilists (there aren't as many libertarians so when we talk of free will these days we are mostly talking about the compatibilist version) are not clear, nor are they often understood to be clear, about just what exactly their free will is or how it works, in the final analysis. It's as if, having retained the term, they think the ramifications can be set aside. Everything is ok. We have free will, because we have defined it a certain way. Specifically, the ramifications that everything we do or that happens to us is either fully determined and/or randomly caused, are to a large extent under-explored, even though determinism is accepted (and free will merely compatible with it).

So maybe we could say to the compatibilist, ok, so we won't quibble with your preferred use of the term and your definition, but what exactly does it entail, how does it pan out, what's actually happening? Is it, for example, the case that I could not, hypothetically, have done otherwise than what I did if I was in the exact same circumstances and had the exact same history? It can't easily be argued that I could. What does that then imply as a consequence? Etc. Etc.

In other words, the tricky questions. After the definition.

I strongly suspect that the ramifications to the answers to these questions are as difficult to accept and radical as are the ramifications of hard determinism, which should not surprise us at all, because compatibilist free will accepts determinism (it arguably just doesn't dwell on it).

Take Daniel Dennett for example, arguably one of the most prominent modern compatibilists. He agrees that we cannot do otherwise in the exact same circumstances. He just says it doesn't matter. And I can see his case. My problem with Daniel Dennett is that he clearly wants to retain the term free will because he feels that if people stop believing in it, they will do bad things and the world will be a worse place. In other words, he believes we need to believe in free will. This is in stark contrast to him thinking that we do not need to believe in god and that the world would be a better place if we didn't.

In other words, I suspect conflation. Compatibilist free will often 'hides from' the ramifications of itself. Free will has been rescued. People are safe in their beds.

 

[The AntiChris]

I'm simply objecting to bad arguments. In this instance, I object to the unargued assumption that the word 'free' can only mean free from all deterministic causality when applied to 'will' (this particular meaning of 'free' is unique to the free will debate).

Apparently you don't understand the argument.

Here it is again in your own words:

My point was, will is formed of an interaction between input and memory by means of neural architecture and its information processing activity, hence will cannot be defined as free

Your conclusion (in bold) does not follow from your premise. It's an invalid argument.

The only thing that follows from your premise is that will cannot be defined as free from from deterministic causation. To get to your conclusion requires additional premises (with supporting arguments).

 

[ruby sparks]

Specific conditions. Now if you want to formally define ''will'' as being ''free'' - unimpeded, unrestricted, you need to define your terms and references, explaining what you mean by 'will' - its role and function - and give an account of why ''will'' is indeed ''free''

Exactly. The tricky questions.

 

[ruby sparks]

Here it is again in your own words:

My point was, will is formed of an interaction between input and memory by means of neural architecture and its information processing activity, hence will cannot be defined as free

Your conclusion (in bold) does not follow from your premise. It's an invalid argument.

The only thing that follows from your premise is that will cannot be defined as free from from deterministic causation. To get to your conclusion requires additional premises (with supporting arguments).

But if it's fully and/or causally determined at any given instant, how is it actually free? What, in other words, are the implications of everything you think and do being fully and/or causally determined at any given instant? Allowing for the possibility of randomness also, which does not give free will and may even confound it.

 

[DBT]

Here it is again in your own words:

My point was, will is formed of an interaction between input and memory by means of neural architecture and its information processing activity, hence will cannot be defined as free

Your conclusion (in bold) does not follow from your premise. It's an invalid argument.

The only thing that follows from your premise is that will cannot be defined as free from from deterministic causation. To get to your conclusion requires additional premises (with supporting arguments).

You merely quote some my words while ignoring everything else that was said and provided, research and evidence, etc, yet claim that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. That is not an argument. It is cherry picking. You miss the most important parts, that will is not the decision maker. Will does not make decisions. Will is simply a part of cognition, an urge or prompt formed by the brain....a rabbit senses danger, feels the urge to run and runs for its life. It's 'will' did not sense danger or make the decision to run any more than it is your will that reads these posts, forms opinions and responds, that is the work of the brain. How you respond is not a matter of your will to decide, but 'your' brain.

If something is 'free' it is the brain that is 'free' to acquire information, make sense of it and respond according to its own information base, memory/experience, because that is the evolved role and function of a brain.

For example.

Quote;
''My position is that free will is only a perception our interpretation of how we experience our actions in the world. No evidence can be found for the common view that it [free will] is a function of our brains that causes behavior. I will make my argument based on research about making voluntary movements for two reasons. First, I am a neurologist, specifically a motor physiologist. Second, movements are easily measured. While other, more complex decisions, such as what I choose for dinner, also can be viewed as influenced by free will, I suspect that they will turn out to be analogous to movement. Anyway, such decisions often eventually manifest in movement of some kind, perhaps reaching for the cookbook or a take-out menu.

I do not doubt that I feel strongly that I have freedom of choice. And I suspect most humans have the same feeling as I do, even though I can't assess this directly. But, of course, this feeling of free will is the case only when I think about it, since most of the time I just go about my business, more or less on automatic pilot. My feeling that I have free will is a subjective perception, an element of my consciousness that philosophers call a quale. We do not understand The answers to these questions are easy only for the dualist, who believes in a mind separate from the brain and who thinks that free will comes from the mind. No evidence for this position can be found, however, and therefore most scientists reject it. the biological nature of consciousness or how awareness is generated, so it is difficult to understand the physiology of any quale, including the perception of free choice. But we do know that our sense of the world is a product of our brain and that a one-to-one match between reality and that interpretation does not exist. Our introspection, our sense of what our brain is doing while clearly useful to us and also valuable as an object of study can be deceptive.

''I don't think "free will" is a very sensible concept, and you don't need neuroscience to reject it -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough, and indeed you could even argue on purely conceptual grounds that the opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will! Most thoughtful neuroscientists I know have replaced the concept of free will with the concept of rationality -- that we select our actions based on a kind of practical reasoning. And there is no conflict between rationality and the mind as a physical system -- After all, computers are rational physical systems! - Martha Farah, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a prominent neuroethicist.

 

[ruby sparks]

Most thoughtful neuroscientists I know have replaced the concept of free will with the concept of rationality -- that we select our actions based on a kind of practical reasoning. And there is no conflict between rationality and the mind as a physical system -- After all, computers are rational physical systems! - Martha Farah, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a prominent neuroethicist.

Indeed. Also, many neuroscientists restrict themselves to talking about 'human agency' (which I personally would prefer to 'rationailty' but there you go) and do not dwell on the (arguably somewhat loaded or confusing) term 'free will' at all, or only in passing. By and large, with some exceptions, neuroscience is not trying to find out if we have free will or don't have it, it is just trying to find out how we work. The free will debate is liveliest among unapplied ('armchair') philosophers, who have to some extant been left behind by applied philosophy (such as science) and are hanging on to its coat-tails, trying to stay at least somewhat relevant.

 

[The AntiChris]

Here it is again in your own words:

My point was, will is formed of an interaction between input and memory by means of neural architecture and its information processing activity, hence will cannot be defined as free

Your conclusion (in bold) does not follow from your premise. It's an invalid argument.

The only thing that follows from your premise is that will cannot be defined as free from from deterministic causation. To get to your conclusion requires additional premises (with supporting arguments).

But if it's fully and/or causally determined at any given instant, how is it actually free?

Exactly the same reasoning could be brought to bear on every single use of the word 'free' in the English language. (that you don't do so makes this a case of special pleading)

 

[DBT]

Here it is again in your own words:

My point was, will is formed of an interaction between input and memory by means of neural architecture and its information processing activity, hence will cannot be defined as free

Your conclusion (in bold) does not follow from your premise. It's an invalid argument.

The only thing that follows from your premise is that will cannot be defined as free from from deterministic causation. To get to your conclusion requires additional premises (with supporting arguments).

Why not explain what you mean by 'will' and ''free will'' in terms of the nature, role and function of will, describing why will may be defined as being free?

If I remember correctly your argument in the past rested on semantics - ''how people use the term''

Is that correct?