There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[DBT]

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)

No, the word free may apply to certain conditions, something unrestricted, unimpeded, ie, free from want, free to travel, etc, which I have already outlined only to have it persistently ignored, so the question is not that the word 'free' cannot be used but why exactly should will be described as being 'free?'

 

[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).

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.

You've completely ignored my post (and avoided addressing my objection).

I'm not arguing for free will.

I'm objecting to the fallacious reasoning which leads to your repeated claim that 'will' cannot be described as free (this is not the same as arguing that it should be described as free )

 

[ruby sparks]

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)

But that doesn't answer the question, which essentially goes beyond mere definitions. The usage in other cases does not of itself justify a use in a particular case. So, in what way is it free in this case and more to the point, what are the ramifications of everything you think and do being determined at any instant?

The first ramification appears to be that you could not, it seems, ever do otherwise than what you did.

That needs to be tackled.

 

[The AntiChris]

so the question is not that the word 'free' cannot be used...

Then why do you insist that it cannot?

...but why exactly should will be described as being 'free?'

I haven't argued that it should, just that it can.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

That's all I want to retain of your post.

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

Typical.

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.

No. I only understand the English bit.

Maybe I understand if what you mean is, "that's not a very good reason".

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'.

The problem I see here is that I don't think many people think of anything as being absolutely free. I would even doubt very much anybody could, for anything. I had initially thought of God as something that seems like it ought to be absolutely free. Nah, does work. If it ought to be absolutely free, then it's not free not to be free. If it's free, it's not free not to be free. So, it's not absolutely free. Not even God is absolutely free.

So, when we use "free", we can only mean free with respect to some very specific characteristic.


So, now, please explain again how even that would be inappropriate.

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.

Except if the way we use "free" is never in any absolute sense.

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).

The "compassionate" bit sounds to me more like a societal concern.

Or is it that feeling more compassionate is just a way of feeling good?

Also, I don't get that you should want to dismiss "free" as ultimately vacuous without ipso facto dismissing "compassionate" as entirely unsubstantial. Aren't all our impressions, about anything whatsoever, ultimately entirely unsubstantial?
EB

 

[The AntiChris]

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)

But that doesn't answer the question,

You mean in "how is it free"?

In any way we want (just like every other use of the word 'free'). That's the nature of language. It's a tool. (I didn't think it was necessary to point out the obvious)

Once again, I'm not arguing that will should be described as free - just that there is no logical reason why will cannot be described as free (in any desired sense of the word 'free').

 

[ruby sparks]

Except if the way we use "free" is never in any absolute sense.

Fair enough. I accept that on that basis, the term 'free will' can be validly used.

I would still like to explore it thereafter though, in the ways I have outlined, to 'unpack' what the implications are.

The "compassionate" bit sounds to me more like a societal concern.

Yes, well, it is. I would just want to stress that when it comes to considering outcomes, I am more motivated by personal reasons and perhaps interpersonal reasons, my relationships with others, perhaps significant others. I'm not on a mission to improve society.

Or is it that feeling more compassionate is just a way of feeling good?

Ultimately, that's part of the truth of it yes. I'm good with that. I wouldn't want to be too cynical about the benefits, some (most) of which will be selfish. I guess I aim for a win-win situation where others benefit too. Reciprocity if you like. Mutual self interest. Good karma.

That said, I again have to stress that I am ultimately motivated by curiosity, to understand. Even the outcomes for myself are secondary. I became an atheist after coming to a certain intellectual conclusion, not because I thought it would make me happier. It's much the same here.

Also, I don't get that you should want to dismiss "free" as ultimately vacuous without ipso facto dismissing "compassionate" as entirely unsubstantial. Aren't all our impressions, about anything whatsoever, ultimately entirely unsubstantial?
EB

I'm not dismissing 'free' as insubstantial. And I'm sort of ok with the word being used for will, but I do want to dig deeper than that.

 

[ruby sparks]

You mean in "how is it free"?

In any way we want (just like every other use of the word 'free'). That's the nature of language. It's a tool. (I didn't think it was necessary to point out the obvious)

But it isn't like any other use of the word, it's a specific use of the word in a specific context. It surely can't be 'any way we want'. That would risk making it....arbitrary.

 

[The AntiChris]

You mean in "how is it free"?

In any way we want (just like every other use of the word 'free'). That's the nature of language. It's a tool. (I didn't think it was necessary to point out the obvious)

But it isn't like any other use of the word,

This is a perfect example of Special Pleading

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

This suggests your concern is, broadly, about compassion, and that you're only using the scientific argument against the reality of free will as a strategy to increase compassion in society.

Now, if that's what you're doing, you should think again. As I said in my previous post, dismissing free will as vacuous on scientific grounds should logically lead you to dismiss compassion too.

Unless your objective is just to feel good feeling compassionate and you're prepared to ignore your own inconsistencies if that can help you feel good.

That may be very effective. I just hope you won't feel bad being unable to justify the logic of your position, though.

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.

As I have to see it, it's only in doing whatever we think of doing that we'll see how it will work out in the longer term.

We may also need to be very modest here as to our abilities to tell what the consequences of our choices will be. In the event, I'm not even sure we will be able to tell. Are we sure going all industrial was a good move?

Also, if you don't have any kind of free will, what's the fuss? You can relax. Let the laws of nature tell you what you have to do.

Do you even know what the laws of nature tell you to do?

No me.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

You mean in "how is it free"?

In any way we want (just like every other use of the word 'free'). That's the nature of language. It's a tool. (I didn't think it was necessary to point out the obvious)

But it isn't like any other use of the word,

This is a perfect example of Special Pleading

Ok, I'm making a promise to myself that this is the last time I'm going to respond on the particular issue of whether one can or cannot say that the word free cannot be applied to human will.

First, as you accept yourself, the word 'cannot' implied 'cannot reasonably' not 'cannot possibly'. That being the case, all this talk of logic and fallacies is largely irrelevant, because we are having an informal discussion based on reasoning only. So, you saying that the claim that the word 'free' cannot be used for human will was, in your own words, arbitrary and lacking in rational argument was de facto incorrect. End of.

Of course the word 'free' can, possibly, be used. If that's all you want to be right about, fine. Can we stop now and get on with discussing free will?

 

[ruby sparks]

This suggests your concern is, broadly, about compassion, and that you're only using the scientific argument against the reality of free will as a strategy to increase compassion in society.

Now, if that's what you're doing, you should think again. As I said in my previous post, dismissing free will as vacuous on scientific grounds should logically lead you to dismiss compassion too.

Unless your objective is just to feel good feeling compassionate and you're prepared to ignore your own inconsistencies if that can help you feel good.

That may be very effective. I just hope you won't feel bad being unable to justify the logic of your position, though.

I hope my interim reply (above) clarifies this a bit and that you wrote this before you read it.

As I have to see it, it's only in doing whatever we think of doing that we'll see how it will work out in the longer term.

Yes.

We may also need to be very modest here as to our abilities to tell what the consequences of our choices will be. In the event, I'm not even sure we will be able to tell. Are we sure going all industrial was a good move?

Yes.

Also, if you don't have any kind of free will, what's the fuss? You can relax. Let the laws of nature tell you what you have to do.

Do you even know what the laws of nature tell you to do?

No me.
EB

Nor me.

But my curiosity to understand is not satisfied.

Though it is true that in most of my daily life, I go about 'as if' I had free will (by which I mean the sort that contains illusory aspects) because it's very hard to do otherwise. But I enjoy the subtle experience of also, at least in the back of my mind, or only at certain moments, understanding at least some of what the illusion might be.

And I accept that there is a version of something that could be called 'free will' (with certain important caveats) which describes some rather neat and apparently unique human capacities which I seem to possess.

 

[DBT]

so the question is not that the word 'free' cannot be used...

Then why do you insist that it cannot?

As I said, the word free is conditional, it has defined meanings and references, so it only applies to something that is related to its definition.

If the word 'free' essentially means something that's unimpeded, unrestricted, not determined by elements beyond its control, then something that is impeded, restricted by conditions and/or determined by elements that are beyond its control, cannot logically be defined as free. It is not free.....only something that is unrestricted, unimpeded, etc, may be referred to as being free...ie, you are able to get out of your chair and take a walk, you are free to take a walk, you are not restricted or impeded from taking a walk.

If, as the evidence shows, will is being shaped and formed by brain activity and state, will is determined by that brain activity and state, it cannot do otherwise, will cannot choose to take a walk, the brain does that, will merely reflects brain decisions, hence the definition of 'free' does not apply to will.

Of course, the brain is able to make decisions and initiate actions by means of will, but that does not make will free. It is a different issue.

I haven't argued that it should, just that it can.

Not if will doesn't meet the terms of the definition of 'free' - unimpeded, unrestricted, not determined by causes beyond its control (of which it has none, being a product of brain activity). To do so would arbitrary, not reasonable, not logical.

 

[The AntiChris]

First, as you accept yourself, the word 'cannot' implied 'cannot reasonably' not 'cannot possibly'.

I don't recall this?

As far as I'm aware, DBT has not at any point revised his claim to include the phrase "cannot reasonably". And even if he did his claim would still be a non-sequitur (it would still require further premises for the conclusion to be valid).

Of course the word 'free' can, possibly, be used.

You need to take this up with DBT.

 

[DBT]

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.

You've completely ignored my post (and avoided addressing my objection).

I'm not arguing for free will.

I'm objecting to the fallacious reasoning which leads to your repeated claim that 'will' cannot be described as free (this is not the same as arguing that it should be described as free )

I asked for several reasons, the main reason being the question of whether we are even talking about the same things. So if you are making assumptions based on your own set of premises, you fail to understand what I say and your 'fallacious reasoning' charge does not relate to my argument....which, based on your objections and questions, appears to be the case.

You should understand that something that is to be defined or described as being free should meet the terms of the word 'free'

Simple enough, yet here we are. I have to state the obvious.

 

[ruby sparks]

Not if will doesn't meet the terms of the definition of 'free' - unimpeded, unrestricted, not determined by causes beyond its control (of which it has none, being a product of brain activity). To do so would arbitrary, not reasonable, not logical.

But your reliance on a particular definition of 'free' means that antichris has valid grounds to object, at least to the suggestion that your premise (the definition) is only one among many possible definitions, even if his saying that your claim was arbitrary and irrational was incorrect.

 

[fromderinside]

Would we be better to discuss free of (insert constraint here) will?

 

[DBT]

First, as you accept yourself, the word 'cannot' implied 'cannot reasonably' not 'cannot possibly'.

I don't recall this?

As far as I'm aware, DBT has not at any point revised his claim to include the phrase "cannot reasonably". And even if he did his claim would still be a non-sequitur (it would still require further premises for the conclusion to be valid).

It's only a non sequitur if you ignore everything I've said. Which you are apparently quite happy to do. What I have been pointing out, repeatedly, that if something is to be defined or referred to as being 'free' then that something must logically meet the definition of 'freedom' or 'free'

As I have described the role and function of will within the cognitive process, conscious urge or prompt, will being shaped and formed by brain activity, with no autonomy of its own, logically, it's rather difficult to describe will as being 'free' because it violates the very definition of the word

 

[ruby sparks]

First, as you accept yourself, the word 'cannot' implied 'cannot reasonably' not 'cannot possibly'.

I don't recall this?

I thought this implied that you accepted it:

Both you and DBT seem to want to go further and say that because 'will' is subject to deterministic causes the word 'free' cannot (sensibly/reasonably) be used to describe 'will'.

In any case, I'm out. Work to do. You and DBT can continue your disagreement without me.

Oh before I go, I apologise for saying that I see you as merely a heckler who won't step up to the plate. I don't really think that's true.

As speakpigeon will no doubt spot, with his excellent pigeon-vision, that's partly just me being strategically apologetic in order to make myself feel better and appear better to others.

But I genuinely apologise nonetheless. I probably fell into the trap of pointless internet arguing and an excess of wanting to be right, leading to unnecessary agitation. I need to learn to better avoid that.

 

[The AntiChris]

so the question is not that the word 'free' cannot be used...

Then why do you insist that it cannot?

If the word 'free' essentially means something that's unimpeded, unrestricted, not determined by elements beyond its control, then something that is impeded, restricted by conditions and/or determined by elements that are beyond its control, cannot logically be defined as free.

But if this definition is correct, nothing in the universe can logically be defined as free!

Either you have to accept that this is not the only meaning of 'free' or you have to accept that what you're saying logically entails expunging the word free from the English language. Your choice.

I haven't argued that it should, just that it can.

Not if will doesn't meet the terms of the definition of 'free' ...

Nothing in the universe qualifies as 'free' under your definition of free. Is this what you're arguing?