There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[ruby sparks]

What makes our sense of self an 'illusion' and not say.. just a component of what we are?

I'd say it was both.

What is the difference between 'us' instigating decisions, and the 'body as totality instigating decisions'?

None. It's really just the body. Or the system if you like. But to us it feels like there's a self in the cockpit.

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.

Not following.

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?

When 'we' state that 'we' are doing anything, it's most likely a user illusion doing the 'talking', imo.

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

I'd say it's approximately on a par.

...and purpose.

I don't think we have one.

 

[rousseau]

I'd say it was both.




None. It's really just the body. Or the system if you like.

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.

Not following.

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?

When 'we' state that 'we' are doing anything, it's most likely a user illusion doing the 'talking'.

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

I'd say it's approximately on a par.

...and purpose.

I don't think we have one.

The main point of most of these posts (which is admittedly hard to put into words).

To me it seems like the claim that we have no free will is supposed to mean that human beings have no freedom. But the referent of our supposed lack of freedom is some unicorn that breaks the laws of physics. Essentially we are taking a non-existent possibility and using it to describe ourselves as 'un-free'. The question is, why is this imaginary conception relevant to what it means to be human?

If we throw away that baggage and move the problem to 'being human as physical process', then in what ways would we define our existence? How is the concept of freedom relevant to what we are, if at all?

It's like people who contemplate free will have this feeling that they are an 'I' that is trapped in a body, rather than the body itself and what it means to be that body. To me that's just an odd position.

 

[ruby sparks]

To me it seems like the claim that we have no free will is supposed to mean that human beings have no freedom.

Sort of, maybe. You might say that (by certain definitions of 'freedom').

But the referent of our supposed lack of freedom is some unicorn that breaks the laws of physics. Essentially we are taking a non-existent possibility and using it to describe ourselves as 'un-free'. The question is, why is this imaginary conception relevant to what it means to be human?

It's not dissimilar in some ways to asking what way is any other imaginary conception relevant to being human. It is arguably part of being human.

If we throw away that baggage and move the problem to 'being human as physical process', then in what ways would we define our existence? How is the concept of freedom relevant to what we are, if at all?

Imo, we'd still have all the capacities we already have, which I like to call 'human agency'. We might start to think of ourselves as 'not so spechul' in some ways. Thinking of ourselves as spechul is arguably endemic to the species. Some don't like the term 'meat robot' for example.

It's like people who contemplate free will have this feeling that they are an 'I' that is trapped in a body, rather than the body itself and what it means to be that body. To me that's just an odd position.

You don't have a robust sense of self?

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Not quite. I said the second group was used by theologians, scientists and philosophers. That's essentially that. May be a few other groups or individuals from different group but it's mainly that.

What I didn't claim was that all scientists, or all theologians, or all philosophers, would only use the second group of definitions. That would be ridiculous. I'm sure many of these people are not ideologues and are very sensible and take a more pragmatic approach to that kind of thing. Maybe Compatibiiists are among them, I just don't assume either way. Not enough experience of these people.
EB

 

[DBT]

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

It appears to me that you are quite arrogant, ignorant and rude. You complain about not being understood even while not understanding what your opponent is saying.

The best thing you could do is ignore everyone who disagrees with you, including me. It would do us all a favour.

 

[DBT]

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.

I only threw up my ''hands in horror'' when your response did not relate to what I had only just explained, ie, that the word 'free (not using ''my'' definition but the general meaning of the word) is relative and that it may apply if the condition relates to the definition of 'free' or freedom.....and your response to this being - ''Nothing in the universe qualifies as 'free' under your definition of free. Is this what you're arguing?''

It's quite strange, to say the least.

Again, the word free, according to the accepted meaning of the word, only applies to something that relates to the definition.....your hands are tied, your hands are restrained, your hands are not free....your hands are untied, you are able to move your hands, your hands are free. References to relative conditions.


So the question, what is that makes will qualify? Why is will free?

 

[The AntiChris]

So the question, what is that makes will qualify? Why is will free?

Since I've never argued that 'will' is free (it makes no sense without saying what it is free of/from). I'm guessing that what you really mean to ask is "how can 'will' be free?" (because I've only argued against your claim that 'will' cannot be described as free)?


As I understand it (this not an attempt to misrepresent you - it's a genuine attempt to understand your position) you say that the only thing 'will' can logically be free from is deterministic causation (and of course it's not free from this - so 'will' can never be described as free). I simply don't understand the reasoning which leads you to this conclusion. It seems to me that to say (for example) "my will is free from intoxicating influences", "my will is free from any [supernatural] divine influences", "my will is free from unwanted coercion from another person" etc. etc... are all logically valid (they don't lead to any logical contradictions). What am I missing?

 

[Emily Lake]

That would be more convincing if you could ever explain convincingly how we ever get to know any particular things to exist objectively.

And this is something I very much doubt (hint: look who is my avatar!)
EB

Nope, I'm done. I try to avoid indulging solipsistic bullshit on the internet, on general principle.

 

[Emily Lake]

We have will. Will is not free. Will cannot be free because it is shaped and formed in response to input and memory by means of neural architecture.

The term 'free will' is an oxymoron.

At this point, I think the only disagreement between you and I is semantic in nature. On the whole, I'm content to say that we're in agreement. The nuance you're drawing between 'will' and 'free will' is very much a disagreement of the specific contextual meaning of the term 'free' in this discussion. On the whole, I think we see it the same way.

 

[Emily Lake]

TIt is possible to disagree about whether 'free' is the right word or not.

Meh. We seem to be back to the disagreement about whether 'free' is sufficient when that freedom is bounded, or if 'free' must mean completely unfettered.

 

[Emily Lake]

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'.

It's more complex than that - I support free will over determinism, because to me determinism requires something closer to a concept of god than free will does. To me, free will is a non-deterministic process as it applies to intelligence and thought. It's much more similar to the process of evolution than it is to anything related to some cosmic zombie. Arguments for determinism, to me, always sound a lot more like intelligent design arguments.

 

[Emily Lake]

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'. This simply does not follow.

It may indeed not necessarily follow, but it is not an arbitrary position/claim that is without reason or rational argument. Do you not agree?

- - - Updated - - -

You quickly slipped in an extra post with a quote.

I had already quoted you previously, actually.

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'. This simply does not follow.

It may indeed not follow, but it is not an arbitrary position that is without reason. Do you not agree?

We don't apply this reasoning to any other current usage of the word 'free'. In other words it's special pleading.

In the absence of a coherent argument in support of this special pleading, it is indeed arbitrary and irrational.

Time out!

I think you guys are arguing past each other. I could end up getting this totally wrong... but here's my take on it.

DBT made the claim that the term "free" cannot be rationally used in conjunction with the term "will" because will is not free from deterministic causes. DBT is making this claim using one specific meaning of the term free, where the term itself has many different connotations and contextual meanings.

The AntiChrist has said that this is special pleading - DBT is conflating a specific meaning of the term "free" with all meanings of the term "free". And because of that special pleading, DBT's argument is fallacious.

I agree with DBT, in that will is not free from deterministic causes. I also agree with The AntiChris, because no argument for "free will" that I have made implies that will is free from deterministic causes. Of course deterministic causes are an element of will. But that doesn't mean that no other meaning of the term "free" would be applicable.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That would be more convincing if you could ever explain convincingly how we ever get to know any particular things to exist objectively.

And this is something I very much doubt (hint: look who is my avatar!)
EB

Nope, I'm done. I try to avoid indulging solipsistic bullshit on the internet, on general principle.

It's not solipsistic at all since I do believe that you exist.

I guess I couldn't not believe that even if I tried very hard.

And you definitely react very much like somebody who does exist.
EB

 

[Emily Lake]

...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'.

Self == User is also Body

Self is the user of this specific set of hardware (that differs in at least some degree from another set of hardware) and has a particular collection of software installed (where other sets of hardware may or may not have exactly the same versions of the same elements in their collection of software) and has a unique set of stored procedures and files (because this set of hardware & software has been used for different things than a different set of hardware & software).

Short story: You can't transplant my mind into a different brain and still end up with me. My "self" is the collection of my specific brain architecture (which is affected by my unique experience and thoughts), my specific set of past experiences (which in turn affects my brain architecture), and my specific predisposed and learned mental skills (I'm inherently good at math, but I practice at darts so I'm decent).

It's not a case of dualism. The two aren't separable. But they also aren't identical. The mind is not the brain - a brain without functioning processes is just a brain and lacks a mind. The brain is not the mind - a mind without a physical processing unit is completely hypothetical.

"Self" isn't illusory - it's just convenient shorthand.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

This is where I quibble. Yes, the brain forms will in response to stimuli... but you seem to imply that such stimuli are external. The brain can form will in response to internal stimuli. The brain can form will in response to memories, imagination, visualization techniques, mental rehearsing, and memorization. Sometimes it is a conscious experience that creates the will.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It appears to me that you are quite arrogant, ignorant and rude. You complain about not being understood even while not understanding what your opponent is saying.

The best thing you could do is ignore everyone who disagrees with you, including me. It would do us all a favour.

Good example of your limited abilities. It's a straightforward non-sequitur. Bravo! Own goal!

Specifically, that I should decide to ignore you doesn't mean I would be ignoring you because we disagree.

I think I would ignore you just because you're a pain in the ass, quite unlike most people here.

Not so difficult to understand, that. And yet.

And, in effect, the way you reply, there's really no substantial difference with you ignoring who you're responding to.
EB

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

The contextual assumptions here are a sticking point. You're saying that a person is free to take a walk if they're not restricted or impeded from taking a walk. Well, sure. As long as you accept the boundary conditions that taking a walk requires mobility, gravity, and a lack of interfering traffic. I mean, one is "free to take a walk" in general terms... but in actuality, one is bound by time constraints, rules of the road and traffic patterns, the existence of other people or objects already being where one wishes to walk, the laws of physics, etc. Even taking a walk is restricted by conditions beyond one's control.

The same is true when it comes to will. We have "free" will within boundary conditions related to stimuli, architecture, prior experience, intelligence, chemistry, and physics.

So what term do you want to use for something that is partially, but not completely, impeded?

- - - Updated - - -

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

YES!!!!!

 

[Emily Lake]

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 two bolded statements seem to be in contradiction. You reject the use of the word free in the context of will, because there exists some constraints or restrictions. Yet you accept the use of the word free in other context, where there exist some constraints or restrictions.

Are you arguing that will is completely impeded and restricted? That would imply that there is no such thing as agency, and that decision making is illusory, wouldn't it? Allowance for some degree of bounded agency (which you seem to have previously accepted as how things actually work) would seem to imply that will is only partly impeded or restricted... which would mean that the term free would apply within the meaning used in your second bolded statement.

 

[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.

Not quite. I said the second group was used by theologians, scientists and philosophers.

But you had two groups, the everyday one (what most people have without even thinking about it) and this:

The second group is the kind of definition I see as motivated by ideology.....

I'm not getting it. So, you're saying those are just two two groups among several, and not that definitions fall into one or the other? There's other options? Because presumably there's more than just the everyday and the ideological?

 

[ruby sparks]

Self == User is also Body

Self is the user of this specific set of hardware (that differs in at least some degree from another set of hardware) and has a particular collection of software installed (where other sets of hardware may or may not have exactly the same versions of the same elements in their collection of software) and has a unique set of stored procedures and files (because this set of hardware & software has been used for different things than a different set of hardware & software).

Short story: You can't transplant my mind into a different brain and still end up with me. My "self" is the collection of my specific brain architecture (which is affected by my unique experience and thoughts), my specific set of past experiences (which in turn affects my brain architecture), and my specific predisposed and learned mental skills (I'm inherently good at math, but I practice at darts so I'm decent).

It's not a case of dualism. The two aren't separable. But they also aren't identical. The mind is not the brain - a brain without functioning processes is just a brain and lacks a mind. The brain is not the mind - a mind without a physical processing unit is completely hypothetical.

I think I'm good with pretty much all of that, apart from not being sure what two equals signs in a row signifies.

"Self" isn't illusory - it's just convenient shorthand.

I guess that depends on what we mean by illusory. There's a sensation of self, so that 'fact' is not an illusion. Perhaps better to say that self is not what it seems to be. It's not a hommunculus either in charge of a Cartesian Theatre, part of the audience in a Cartesian Theatre, or on the stage in a Cartesian Theatre, for example.