There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[DBT]

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.

It's just the standard meaning of free or freedom. If something is constrained or restricted, it cannot be said to be free. Accepted meaning and word use. Something may be partially constrained or restricted....if ''he cannot go to the meeting because he has a prior appointment'' he is not free to go to the meeting, but he is free to go to his prior appointment. Terms and references define usage.

 

[The AntiChris]

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'.

Yes you're right. I'd forgotten that I'd (charitably) included the words in parentheses.

 

[DBT]

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?

My, God, it appears to be the complete opposite of what I have been saying! I said that the word 'free' is relative and applies to certain conditions, conditions that meet the definition of the word. Going on to explain where it does apply and where it doesn't.....even giving examples!

Now, this! It's like we are trying to communicate in different languages.

Anyway, I'm out of time. I'll take it up tomorrow.

 

[The AntiChris]

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

My, God, it appears to be the complete opposite of what I have been saying! I said that the word 'free' is relative and applies to certain conditions, conditions that meet the definition of the word. Going on to explain where it does apply and where it doesn't.....even giving examples!

The problem here is that you make a specific claim (post #733) and when I demonstrate the problems with your position, you throw your hands up in horror and say I've ignored stuff you've written elsewhere.

This makes it virtually impossible to have a meaningful exchange with you.

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

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. There is no single meaning of free that qualifies as "the very definition of the word".

In any event it really should give you pause for thought when the one, and only one, specific definition of 'free' you insist must apply to 'will' cannot be applied to any other entity in the universe. This is blatant Special pleading.

 

[ruby sparks]

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

Just popping back momentarily and not getting into the who's right who's wrong thing, and answering on behalf of myself only......I would say yes to that. Under a certain definition (which may be considered as a valid one by some people), nothing qualifies as free (except perhaps true randomness, if it exists) and there is no free will, in a similar way to saying that there is, in the final analysis, no god, by any reasonable or meaningful definition.

I know the two issues are not the same. Comparison with the god issue is just using an analogy and all analogies are imperfect. I don't think it's completely unrelated or that the similarities are irrelevant though, even if they are not necessarily fundamental to the free will question in principle (in practice might be a different kettle of fish, partly because our folk psychology has been steeped in religion for millennia).

Or if we want to avoid getting into theology, we could say that there is, as far as we can tell, by the same standards used above, no such thing as magic (in the paranormal sense).

 

[ruby sparks]

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

That might help. I'm not sure exactly how. Maybe you mean that we could say, as per speakpigeon's suggested definition, 'free of external constraint'? I'm not sure where that would get us, if we were keen to probe further into what's going on in our brains, or unpack the potentially humbling prospect that it's true that we can never, bar some sort of pesky random curve ball, think or do otherwise than what we actually end up thinking and doing; that we are, despite it generally seeming otherwise, prisoners to determinism (and/or randomness) in the final analysis. Compatibilism wouldn't get us out of that potentially identity-crisis inducing predicament. Nor would stochasticism.

 

[fromderinside]

Eyup. The all were tried and they all were fried. Problem with both Speakpigoen's and my options are there are always constraints to constraints and ad finitum we go. Let's go display, WYSIWYG.

 

[ruby sparks]

Eyup. The all were tried and they all were fried. Problem with both Speakpigoen's and my options are there are always constraints to constraints and ad finitum we go. Let's go display, WYSIWYG.

Fair enough. That said, the cat is out of the bag. Neuroscience is on the case. It's probably only a matter of time. If you're a betting man I'd say ditch the fudge and get on board now.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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?

One can only assume you're nothing if not brain dead.

It seemed to me my post was fairly explicit and well written enough for everybody posting around here to understand it.

It appears I was completely wrong.

I seems one would do well just ignoring you altogether.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Here is a small sample of definitions of free will. I present them in two groups.

The first one is what I think is the kind of definitions most people would accept if given enough time to think about it. That's broadly what I always thought of as free will myself.

It should be noted that the use of "free" in this first group of definitions is in line with how "free" is generally used in the English language.

For example, we can talk of a rock in free fall. So, who ever objected to that on the ground that the rock is subjected to gravity and is therefore not free but forced to fall?

The notion of free will I think most people have without even thinking about it
- The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
- The apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined
- The ability to make a choice without coercion: he left of his own free will: I did not influence him.
- Free and independent choice; voluntary decision.

______________________

The second group is the kind of definition I see as motivated by ideology, and therefore used essentially by philosophers, theologians and hard-core materialists. I don't think I've ever met anybody in the flesh who would use this kind of definitions.

The notion of free will debated by ideologues on all sides
- The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.
- The doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
- Opposed to determinism, the belief that physical causes do not entirely shape the world, and that mental processes can act to influence things.

And, I assume you're free to search the Internet for more of the same.

And there are also paper dictionaries. Remember?
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

What you have there, sp, is a false dichotomy. Not all those who are interested in more than the definitions that most people use are ideologues. You are more or less lumping neuroscientists in with theologians.

I think you might also have left out compatibilists, which would be most philosophers these days.

 

[The AntiChris]

I think you might also have left out compatibilists, which would be most philosophers these days.

Compatibilism would fall into Speakpigeon's first category.

 

[ruby sparks]

In the first group or the second group?

 

[The AntiChris]

In the first group or the second group?

By first 'category' I meant first 'group'.

 

[ruby sparks]

In the first group or the second group?

By first 'category' I meant first 'group'.

So do you mean all 3 in the first group?

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't want to seem cantankerous, and by golly am I ever fed up with only getting as far as disagreeing about definitions, but I don't see how compatibilism can be in the 'everday' usage' group. First, it's moot whether most people are in fact compatibilist and second, sp's 2nd group is for philosophers, for whom compatibilism is a highly technical, complex and specific stance (or stances, since there are many versions).

 

[The AntiChris]

In the first group or the second group?

By first 'category' I meant first 'group'.

So do you mean all 3 in the first group?

All 3 what?

All I'm telling you is that the compatibilism I'm familiar with would broadly fall into the first of SP's 2 groups.

compatibilism is a highly technical, complex

It doesn't have to be. You really should take the time to familiarise yourself with the subject.

 

[rousseau]

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.

My meaning isn't that it's 'conscious experience' that wills, but rather that it's 'brain doing in response to inputs and past experience' that wills.

The question to me here is what does 'will' mean. The usual conception is that there is an 'I' doing the willing, but why can't the agent doing the willing just be the totality of our physical body exerting itself forward? In which case 'will' would be the process of exerting ourselves over time in response to the environment. There being no 'I' does not mean that we as human beings do not exist, or are not a real being in the world, with real experiences and processes. Why can 'I' not be defined as the totality of the physical processes in my body, and my 'will' the process of willing myself forward? It again throws back to the question of why a 'mover' is a bench-mark to give our existence any meaning. We're defining the problem by something we are not, rather than something we are.

So: What are we trying to claim or state about human existence by highlighting that there is no central mover? What significance does this have?

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.

My definition here would be free to act in the world. We are free, acting bodies who are able to manipulate the environment toward our own ends, hence we are able to achieve what we would like to happen (will).

From dictionary.com:

will - the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action.

Why can the 'person' not be the 'totality', and the 'deciding' not be the 'process that the totality undergoes'

Again, what are we saying about a person by claiming 'they' don't have control over their decisions, when 'they the totality' are always in the process of making decisions? Why are we not defining a human being and what they do by what they actually are (a physical process)?

 

[rousseau]

...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'.

Some questions:

- What makes our sense of self an 'illusion' and not say.. just a component of what we are?
- What is the difference between 'us' instigating decisions, and the 'body as totality instigating decisions'?

This is like an inversion of the mind-body problem. Again, for some reason there 'being no self' is supposed to be defining who and what we are, rather than just being what we are.

What are we trying to say when we state that 'I' am not deciding, when 'I' does not exist except my physical body? And how do we move forward from that proposition? What does it mean to be human given no God?

To me, the discussion of freedom is less jarring than our evolutionary origins and purpose.

 

[ruby sparks]

You really should take the time to familiarise yourself with the subject.

Yeah right.