There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[DBT]

You're not answering my question. I didn't ask you to define free will. I'm asking you to explain what you think the difference is between 'agency' (which you have expressed acceptance of) and 'will' (which you have also expressed acceptance of) and 'free will' (which you have vehemently declared doesn't exist).

What do you see as the material differences?

Well, I was responding to what you said - ''I'm seriously having trouble making out what you think free will is'' - nor is there any vehemence. That is your interpretation.

As I have already pointed out...will,as already defined, is being formed by brain activity in response to its stimuli, which is what brains have evolved to do, interact with the environment.

As will has no autonomy, no agency of its own, being fixed by brain state in any given instance in time, will cannot be labeled as being free in any sense of the meaning of the word.

Simple as that.


Free;
a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance

1. Freedom requires that given an act A, the agent (will) could have acted otherwise
2. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable
3. Therefore determinism is incompatible with freedom
4. Therefore will, determined by brain state, is not free.


That which is fixed and unchangeable is not free. Not by any definition of the word. Though some folk may want to redefine the word 'free' in order to suit their own need to rationalize.

 

[DBT]

Yeah, Einstein also said that "God does not play dice with the universe"... which is wrong on a couple of different levels.

Which has nothing to do with his example....the motion//orbit of the moon being determined by gravity and mass not quantum randomness, so your objection completely misses the point of the example, which was related to causality and perception of agency.

It matters not in the least if it was quantum probability, this is no more subject to regulation by will than hard determinism.


''Indeterminism is not an absence of causation but the presence of non−deterministic causal processes'' (Fetzer 1988).

 

[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.

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?

I only know of these two groups of definitions. If you know of another group, please tell us.

I also definitely expect many scientists to just use a definition in the second group without even realising what they are doing but not necessarily for ideological purposes. They may use them for their work while also using the everyday definitions when they're talking with non-scientists, in the course of their own everyday life. Most people don't have the time or the inclination to pay attention to that sort of stuff.

_____________________

So, given this, please explain to me how I should rephrase my post below accordingly, if you can.
EB

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

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Like all words, ''free'' has a certain essential meaning, something that is not bound, not determined, not obstructed or restricted, for example, so something that is bound or restricted cannot be called free as it doesn't meet the definition of the word. If your hands are bound, for instance, they cannot be described as being free. Your hands are not free. Your legs may not be bound, therefore you are able to walk, you are free to walk.

So, as will is not the agent of information processing or decision making or motor actions initiated, but plays a defined role as determined by the actual agency, an active brain....how is logically possible to define will as being free?

Here is how one well-known dictionary defines "free".

free
adj.
1.
a. Not imprisoned or confined: walked out of prison a free man; set the birds free.
b. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.
2.
a. Not controlled by another country or political power; independent: a free nation.
b. Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties: a free citizenry.
c. Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government: a free press.
d. Not enslaved.
3.
a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance: a healthy animal, free of disease; people free from need.
b. Not subject to a given condition; exempt: income that is free of all taxes.
4.
a. Not bound by convention or the rules of form: a free artistic style.
b. Not literal or exact: a free translation.
5.
a. Costing nothing; gratuitous: a free meal.
b. Publicly supported: free education.
6.
a. Unobstructed; clear: a free lane on the highway.
b. Not occupied or used: a free locker; free energy.
c. Not taken up by scheduled activities: free time between classes.
7.
a. Immoderate in giving or spending; liberal or lavish: tourists who are free with their money.
b. Frank or unguarded in expression or manner; open or outspoken: She is very free with her opinions.
8. Given, made, or done of one's own accord; voluntary or spontaneous: a free act of the will; free choices.
9. Chemistry & Physics
a. Unconstrained; unconfined: free expansion.
b. Not fixed in position; capable of relatively unrestricted motion: a free electron.
c. Not chemically bound in a molecule: free oxygen.
d. Involving no collisions or interactions: a free path.
e. Empty or unoccupied: a free space; an atom with a free energy level.
10. Nautical Favorable: a free wind.
11. Not bound, fastened, or attached: the free end of a chain.
12. Linguistics
a. Being a form, especially a morpheme, that can stand as an independent word, such as boat or bring.
b. Being a vowel in an open syllable, as the o in go.
adv.
1. In a free manner; without restraint.
2. Without charge.
tr.v. freed, free·ing, frees
1. To make free, as from confinement or oppression: freed the slaves.
2. To relieve of a burden, obligation, or restraint: a people who were at last freed from fear.
3. To remove obstructions or entanglements from; clear: free a path through the jungle.
4. To make available: Canceling the program freed up money for the new library.
n. Sports
Freestyle.
Idiom:
for free Informal
Without charge.
[Middle English fre, from Old English frēo. V., from Middle English freen, from Old English frēon, to love, set free; see prī- in Indo-European roots.]
free′ly adv.
free′ness n.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

The most "essential meanings" are those that come first but even if you look through the whole list, I can't see which definition you use.

Please refer me to the dictionary you use.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

I here you. I just haven't figured out how to square all of that with things like imagination, invention, and innovation - the extrapolative functions. I don't see how those can possibly work in a purely reactionary world.

They can, and imo probably do. And they are amazing capacities. I think of billions (or more) tiny little reactions all happening at once in an undirected (by 'me') symphony. It's not entirely unlike how the universe is still awesome (a la Carl Sagan perhaps) without god. Sort of. Partial analogy again.

I think 'extrapolative functions' is a good term. We're pretty impressive meat robots in many ways. Not so much in others. See: (a) war and (b) destroying the planet.

Now granted, we don't make nearly as many decisions as we think we do. We run on routine an awful lot. There's a lot I don't know, but what I *think* I understand is that we tend to make a conscious or semi-conscious decision once on most things, and then we just repeat until it no longer works. So we get a new pair of shoes, and for a while, we actually consider whether or not that new pair of shoes goes with a particular outfit or not. Once we've established that it goes with an outfit, we'll usually wear those same shows. Until we get another pair of shoes that also goes with that same outfit... or until that pair of shoes wears out. As long as the initiating conditions don't change, neither does our previously chosen response. But when conditions do change... then we re-evaluate.

I'm not sure where the dividing lines are or whether it's fair to say there are any 'lines' but yes, we could distinguish a few different types of thinking, roughly speaking. There's the non-conscious sort where 'we' have no input (I don't really think there is a 'we' by the way, I think that's just a user illusion, a sensation) such as at the bottom end the 'thinking' that regulates our breathing, up to the thinking that makes us suddenly lift our hand off the hot stove and the thinking (I'm using the term 'thinking' to cover all cognitive processes) that makes us, without being aware of it, warm to another person of the opposite sex (assuming we're straight) if their pupils dilate. Then perhaps at the other end of the scale there's conscious deliberation and evaluation, which as you say does not happen half as often as we think it does. And there are probably lots of intermediate variations. And as you say it doesn't have to be robust, it could be 'I like red', or we could be only half-conscious (dreaming while asleep is one I used to be especially interested in).

Into the bargain, there are lots of mini-illusions. 'We' are the unreliable narrators of our existences and experiences, being constantly fooled one way or another, whether it's 'tricks' of vision or kidding ourselves about our true motives or thinking ourselves more rational than we really are and so on.

It's a rich tapestry of experience and the idea that it's all happening undirected and automatically but with the sensation that 'we' are in control is of itself fascinating, and (imo) a life-enhancing paradox to take on board. In a way, it's kind of 'eastern'. What I mean is that in some other parts of the word their philosophies, cultures (and religions) didn't seem to develop the strong belief in free will that is common in the 'west', perhaps especially in the USA. I'm not saying that 'eastern' views are afreewillist, only that the conception appears to be slightly weaker. Russians, I hear, are typically quite fatalistic, which is yet another variation.

 

[ruby sparks]

DBT, I get what you're saying here. I think what the rest of us are saying is that none of us are using it in the sens of an ultimate condition. I believe you are alone in insisting upon that definition. I believe that everyone else in this thread is using the term in a relative sense.

You're also, by the way, assuming a perfectly determined world. You seem to be treating that as axiomatic... and you also avoid responding to any discussion that considers a stochastic world as a possibility. On this, you appear to be reflecting a belief.

To be fair, I don't think it's a belief (except that every position we hold is arguably a belief) as such. Iow, it's rationally justified and does, probably, reflect the actual state of affairs. DBT is simply drilling down into things more than some others. He/she finds no possible freedom, ultimately.

The reluctance to accept the term 'free will' is a slightly different matter, imo. A couple of years ago, I would have been just as reluctant. Then at some point I stopped bothering. If others want to retain the term, fine, that's up to them. Ditto if some want to define god as 'the universe'.

A couple of years ago, I would have said that I thought compatibilism was a fudge. In fact, I still would.

When Daniel Dennett, for example, says we should retain the term free will, he does so partly because he feels that we need to think (believe) we have free will, or people will do bad things. Iow he fears what will happen if we all drilled down too far. It's not entirely unlike the apocryphal bishop's wife who, at the time of Darwin, said to her husband, 'Descended from the apes! My dear, let us hope that it is not true, but if it is let us pray that it will not become commonly known'.

The most interesting aspect of it all is to appreciate what our capacities are, regardless of what we call them. And I'm not convinced that compatibilism isn't in some ways an impediment to that.

 

[ruby sparks]

''Indeterminism is not an absence of causation but the presence of non−deterministic causal processes'' (Fetzer 1988).

Indeed.

 

[ruby sparks]

I also definitely expect many scientists to just use a definition in the second group without even realising what they are doing but not necessarily for ideological purposes. They may use them for their work while also using the everyday definitions when they're talking with non-scientists, in the course of their own everyday life. Most people don't have the time or the inclination to pay attention to that sort of stuff.

As far as I am aware, many, perhaps even most scientists just don't get into the debate about 'free will', including some or many neuroscientists who are investigating the relevant phenomena. This imo is probably a good thing, because debate can get hung up, too much, on wrangling over terms and definitions.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I also definitely expect many scientists to just use a definition in the second group without even realising what they are doing but not necessarily for ideological purposes. They may use them for their work while also using the everyday definitions when they're talking with non-scientists, in the course of their own everyday life. Most people don't have the time or the inclination to pay attention to that sort of stuff.

As far as I am aware, many, perhaps even most scientists just don't get into the debate about 'free will', including some or many neuroscientists who are investigating the relevant phenomena.

I wouldn't know myself but I suspect most people are "borderline", which would make your assessment somewhat inaccurate.

This imo is probably a good thing, because debate can get hung up, too much, on wrangling over terms and definitions.

The difficulty in the debate comes from the few people having ideological positions, on both sides.

That being said, I would agree that most people have better things to do.

Yet, it could also be useful that at least some "non-ideological" scientists look into the issue of free will. They might even learn one thing or two.
EB

 

[The AntiChris]

Nothing in a determined world is free.

So every use of the word 'free' in our [assumed] deterministic universe is mistaken?

You are missing the distinction between the ultimate nature of the system and references to freedom that are made by its inhabitants in relation to the workings of its parts.

I'm not missing anything. I'm sincerely trying to understand what you you mean when you make claims like the one quoted above. Can you you please give a straightforward answer?

It doesn't matter either way, pure randomness won't help establish an argument for free will.

I'm bewildered by this kind of comment.

I've never argued that randomness of any kind can salvage any version of free will.

 

[ruby sparks]

I wouldn't know myself but I suspect most people are "borderline", which would make your assessment somewhat inaccurate.

Most people (as opposed to most scientists, which is who I referred to) are, as far as can be told from certain investigations and studies, confused, in a nutshell. Perhaps a better way to put it would be to say that the 'typical' 'person in the street' view appears to be libertarian-esque leaning, with some instinctive compatibilist ingredients, though not uniformly applied (eg in different situations) in a way that would suggest they are adherents of any thought-through philosophical position. There are also elements of hard determinism. That said, saying most people are borderline is also arguably another way of putting it, yes.

As for scientists, I meant 'get into' as in as part of their work. Given the number of scientists in the world and the number who get into the free will debate I'sd say the latter was probably a minority. When they do get involved, they come from a variety of disciplines, not necessarily neuroscience.

The difficulty in the debate comes from the few people having ideological positions, on both sides.

I wouldn't say it was only that. There are also/still difficulties and disagreements even among the non-ideological.

Yet, it could also be useful that at least some "non-ideological" scientists look into the issue of free will. They might even learn one thing or two.
EB

The scientists who study the relevant phenomena without necessarily getting into the free will debate probably do learn stuff.

You seem to have a thing about supposed ideology. I wonder if someone said to you that free will probably does not exist if you would label them straight away as ideological. I hope not.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You seem to have a thing about supposed ideology. I wonder if someone said to you that free will probably does not exist if you would label them straight away as ideological.

Nah. I only came to this view here, on this forum. Both my view about free will itself and my view about the addiction to ideology of some around here. In fact, I don't care much about free will either way. Saying you have free will is like saying the sun is shining, not something people should need to debate about. And yet they do.
EB

 

[Emily Lake]

Yeah, Einstein also said that "God does not play dice with the universe"... which is wrong on a couple of different levels.

Which has nothing to do with his example....the motion//orbit of the moon being determined by gravity and mass not quantum randomness, so your objection completely misses the point of the example, which was related to causality and perception of agency.

It matters not in the least if it was quantum probability, this is no more subject to regulation by will than hard determinism.


''Indeterminism is not an absence of causation but the presence of non−deterministic causal processes'' (Fetzer 1988).

Pretty sure I said almost exactly that a few pages ago... yep, I did.

On topic... If the causal process is non-deterministic, then the outcomes are also non-deterministic. That clearly implies that given the same starting conditions, it's possible for a different outcome to occur. In this context, that means that given the same history and experiences, it's possible for a person to make a different decision.

And again, since you keep sidestepping it... It's possible for the decision-making process to be deterministic (follows a well-defined rule set) and still have outcomes that are non-deterministic.

And if you allow for both will and agency within the context of decision-making, the hang-up over the word "free" paired with your specific interpretation of that meaning, and unwillingness to allow for anyone else to be using it in any other way seems needlessly semantic.

Adding: A non-deterministic outcome is contradictory to your insistence in a perfectly deterministic universe.

 

[Emily Lake]

I here you. I just haven't figured out how to square all of that with things like imagination, invention, and innovation - the extrapolative functions. I don't see how those can possibly work in a purely reactionary world.

They can, and imo probably do. And they are amazing capacities. I think of billions (or more) tiny little reactions all happening at once in an undirected (by 'me') symphony. It's not entirely unlike how the universe is still awesome (a la Carl Sagan perhaps) without god. Sort of. Partial analogy again.

I think 'extrapolative functions' is a good term. We're pretty impressive meat robots in many ways. Not so much in others. See: (a) war and (b) destroying the planet.

Now granted, we don't make nearly as many decisions as we think we do. We run on routine an awful lot. There's a lot I don't know, but what I *think* I understand is that we tend to make a conscious or semi-conscious decision once on most things, and then we just repeat until it no longer works. So we get a new pair of shoes, and for a while, we actually consider whether or not that new pair of shoes goes with a particular outfit or not. Once we've established that it goes with an outfit, we'll usually wear those same shows. Until we get another pair of shoes that also goes with that same outfit... or until that pair of shoes wears out. As long as the initiating conditions don't change, neither does our previously chosen response. But when conditions do change... then we re-evaluate.

I'm not sure where the dividing lines are or whether it's fair to say there are any 'lines' but yes, we could distinguish a few different types of thinking, roughly speaking. There's the non-conscious sort where 'we' have no input (I don't really think there is a 'we' by the way, I think that's just a user illusion, a sensation) such as at the bottom end the 'thinking' that regulates our breathing, up to the thinking that makes us suddenly lift our hand off the hot stove and the thinking (I'm using the term 'thinking' to cover all cognitive processes) that makes us, without being aware of it, warm to another person of the opposite sex (assuming we're straight) if their pupils dilate. Then perhaps at the other end of the scale there's conscious deliberation and evaluation, which as you say does not happen half as often as we think it does. And there are probably lots of intermediate variations. And as you say it doesn't have to be robust, it could be 'I like red', or we could be only half-conscious (dreaming while asleep is one I used to be especially interested in).

Into the bargain, there are lots of mini-illusions. 'We' are the unreliable narrators of our existences and experiences, being constantly fooled one way or another, whether it's 'tricks' of vision or kidding ourselves about our true motives or thinking ourselves more rational than we really are and so on.

It's a rich tapestry of experience and the idea that it's all happening undirected and automatically but with the sensation that 'we' are in control is of itself fascinating, and (imo) a life-enhancing paradox to take on board. In a way, it's kind of 'eastern'. What I mean is that in some other parts of the word their philosophies, cultures (and religions) didn't seem to develop the strong belief in free will that is common in the 'west', perhaps especially in the USA. I'm not saying that 'eastern' views are afreewillist, only that the conception appears to be slightly weaker. Russians, I hear, are typically quite fatalistic, which is yet another variation.

Where do you place anticipation in this framework? Not anticipation in the emotional sense, but in the sense of anticipating what will come next, and taking action prior to the event that is being anticipated?

 

[ruby sparks]

Where do you place anticipation in this framework? Not anticipation in the emotional sense, but in the sense of anticipating what will come next, and taking action prior to the event that is being anticipated?

Well, my take on it, and you may not be surprised to hear that I don't think it's got any 'special sauce' on it is that our cognitive systems, brain machinery or what have you, churn out such things automatically, and I would think they have to be based on regurgitating or recombining past experiences, because I doubt if we could anticipate what might be coming next if, for example, thrugxntic.

I'm hoping that's a word you've never seen before and hopefully won't have too many associations with.

 

[Emily Lake]

Where do you place anticipation in this framework? Not anticipation in the emotional sense, but in the sense of anticipating what will come next, and taking action prior to the event that is being anticipated?

Well, my take on it, and you may not be surprised to hear that I don't think it's got any 'special sauce' on it is that our cognitive systems, brain machinery or what have you, churn out such things automatically, and I would think they have to be based on regurgitating or recombining past experiences, because I doubt if we could anticipate what might be coming next if, for example, thrugxntic.

I'm hoping that's a word you've never seen before and hopefully won't have too many associations with.

Lol... good word!

Sure, of course it's extrapolation based on prior experiences. But that's not the point I was aiming at. You were framing it as a reactive system... which would seem to rule out proactive elements, of which anticipation is one.

 

[DBT]

Like all words, ''free'' has a certain essential meaning, something that is not bound, not determined, not obstructed or restricted, for example, so something that is bound or restricted cannot be called free as it doesn't meet the definition of the word. If your hands are bound, for instance, they cannot be described as being free. Your hands are not free. Your legs may not be bound, therefore you are able to walk, you are free to walk.

So, as will is not the agent of information processing or decision making or motor actions initiated, but plays a defined role as determined by the actual agency, an active brain....how is logically possible to define will as being free?

Here is how one well-known dictionary defines "free".

free
adj.
1.
a. Not imprisoned or confined: walked out of prison a free man; set the birds free.
b. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.
2.
a. Not controlled by another country or political power; independent: a free nation.
b. Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties: a free citizenry.
c. Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government: a free press.
d. Not enslaved.
3.
a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance: a healthy animal, free of disease; people free from need.
b. Not subject to a given condition; exempt: income that is free of all taxes.
4.
a. Not bound by convention or the rules of form: a free artistic style.
b. Not literal or exact: a free translation.
5.
a. Costing nothing; gratuitous: a free meal.
b. Publicly supported: free education.
6.
a. Unobstructed; clear: a free lane on the highway.
b. Not occupied or used: a free locker; free energy.
c. Not taken up by scheduled activities: free time between classes.
7.
a. Immoderate in giving or spending; liberal or lavish: tourists who are free with their money.
b. Frank or unguarded in expression or manner; open or outspoken: She is very free with her opinions.
8. Given, made, or done of one's own accord; voluntary or spontaneous: a free act of the will; free choices.
9. Chemistry & Physics
a. Unconstrained; unconfined: free expansion.
b. Not fixed in position; capable of relatively unrestricted motion: a free electron.
c. Not chemically bound in a molecule: free oxygen.
d. Involving no collisions or interactions: a free path.
e. Empty or unoccupied: a free space; an atom with a free energy level.
10. Nautical Favorable: a free wind.
11. Not bound, fastened, or attached: the free end of a chain.
12. Linguistics
a. Being a form, especially a morpheme, that can stand as an independent word, such as boat or bring.
b. Being a vowel in an open syllable, as the o in go.
adv.
1. In a free manner; without restraint.
2. Without charge.
tr.v. freed, free·ing, frees
1. To make free, as from confinement or oppression: freed the slaves.
2. To relieve of a burden, obligation, or restraint: a people who were at last freed from fear.
3. To remove obstructions or entanglements from; clear: free a path through the jungle.
4. To make available: Canceling the program freed up money for the new library.
n. Sports
Freestyle.
Idiom:
for free Informal
Without charge.
[Middle English fre, from Old English frēo. V., from Middle English freen, from Old English frēon, to love, set free; see prī- in Indo-European roots.]
free′ly adv.
free′ness n.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

The most "essential meanings" are those that come first but even if you look through the whole list, I can't see which definition you use.

Please refer me to the dictionary you use.
EB

It is right there in your quote.

Keep in mind that the relevant definition is related to context....of which your dictionary gives examples.

Copied from your source.
a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance:

11. Not bound, fastened, or attached:

b. Not subject to a given condition;

 

[DBT]

Yeah, Einstein also said that "God does not play dice with the universe"... which is wrong on a couple of different levels.

Which has nothing to do with his example....the motion//orbit of the moon being determined by gravity and mass not quantum randomness, so your objection completely misses the point of the example, which was related to causality and perception of agency.

It matters not in the least if it was quantum probability, this is no more subject to regulation by will than hard determinism.


''Indeterminism is not an absence of causation but the presence of non−deterministic causal processes'' (Fetzer 1988).

Pretty sure I said almost exactly that a few pages ago... yep, I did.

That was your discussion with fast, not me. I don't have time to read everyones discussions and replies.

On topic... If the causal process is non-deterministic, then the outcomes are also non-deterministic. That clearly implies that given the same starting conditions, it's possible for a different outcome to occur. In this context, that means that given the same history and experiences, it's possible for a person to make a different decision.

And again, since you keep sidestepping it... It's possible for the decision-making process to be deterministic (follows a well-defined rule set) and still have outcomes that are non-deterministic.

You don't appear to be reading what I say. I pointed out that non deterministic events produce different outcomes....but, this is the important part - non deterministic events are not subject to regulation through an act of will.

It's an integral part of the syllogism.

Another way to put it being;

"Volitions are either caused or they are not. If they are not caused, an inexorable logic brings us to the absurdities just mentioned. If they are caused, the free-will doctrine is annihilated." - John Fiske.

"If previous physical events completely determine all the movements of my body, then the movements of my pen are also completely determined by previous physical events....But if the movements of my pen are completely determined by previous physical events, how can it be held that my mental processes have anything to do with the movements made by my pen....I do not think that it can reasonably be maintained that physical indeterminism is capable of affording any help in this problem."
(Philosophy and the Physicists, Dover, 1958 (1939), pp.216-7)

'' But now we must ask how it is that I come to make my choice. Either it is an accident that I choose to act as I do or it is not. If it is an accident, then it is merely a matter of chance that I did not choose otherwise; and if it is merely a matter of chance that I did not choose otherwise, it is surely irrational to hold me morally responsible for choosing as I did. But if it is not an accident that I choose to do one thing rather than another, then presumably there is some causal explanation of my choice: and in that case we are led back to determinism.''
(Philosophical Essays, 1954, p.275)

''As far as human freedom is concerned, it doesn't matter whether physics is deterministic, as Newtonian physics was, or whether it allows for an indeterminacy at the level of particle physics, as contemporary quantum mechanics does. Indeterminism at the level of particles in physics is really no support at all to any doctrine of the freedom of the will; because first, the statistical indeterminacy at the level of particles does not show any indeterminacy at the level of the objects that matter to us – human bodies, for example. And secondly, even if there is an element of indeterminacy in the behaviour of physical particles – even if they are only statistically predictable – still, that by itself gives no scope for human freedom of the will; because it doesn't follow from the fact that particles are only statistically determined that the human mind can force the statistically-determined particles to swerve from their paths. Indeterminism is no evidence that there is or could be some mental energy of human freedom that can move molecules in directions that they were not otherwise going to move. So it really does look as if everything we know about physics forces us to some form of denial of human freedom.''
(Mind, Brains, and Science, 1984, pp.86-7)

Adding: A non-deterministic outcome is contradictory to your insistence in a perfectly deterministic universe.

No, it is not a problem for me. It is a problem for the idea of 'free' will as opposed to normal garden variety 'will' which we experience daily.

I have focused on one or the other, determinism and indeterminism at different times. I have repeatedly pointed out the problems with both determinism and non determinism, be it random events or quantum probability in relation to the decision making process and its agency, this being the architecture and information processing activity of a brain.

 

[ruby sparks]

Where do you place anticipation in this framework? Not anticipation in the emotional sense, but in the sense of anticipating what will come next, and taking action prior to the event that is being anticipated?

Well, my take on it, and you may not be surprised to hear that I don't think it's got any 'special sauce' on it is that our cognitive systems, brain machinery or what have you, churn out such things automatically, and I would think they have to be based on regurgitating or recombining past experiences, because I doubt if we could anticipate what might be coming next if, for example, thrugxntic.

I'm hoping that's a word you've never seen before and hopefully won't have too many associations with.

Lol... good word!

Sure, of course it's extrapolation based on prior experiences. But that's not the point I was aiming at. You were framing it as a reactive system... which would seem to rule out proactive elements, of which anticipation is one.

Ah I see. No, not really. Well, it might come down to defining proactive. Isn't it essentially reactive? It won't happen in a vacuum. It has to happen as a result of something, be part of a causal chain of prior events, it seems. And it happens automatically. So in the case of that word I made up, maybe your cognitive system ran its anticipatory functions, looking for something to help it anticipate (imagine you meet a person in the street and they say the word to you, what does it mean? What do they want? What are they about to do? etc).

On a less pedantic note, yes, we could distinguish proactive from reactive, but neither would get us to the sort of free will which involves personal conscious control. It'd still just be the system running automatically. Being truly proactive would seem to involve being able to break the causal chain, being able to instigate something like 'first causes', a bit like, um, god. But then in a way, that's what god is, god is our projection out into the universe of the little hommunculus we readily imagine is in our heads.

That said, I have already agreed that being proactive, via deliberation and running forward/backward simulations, is a capacity that we seem to have which other animals don't seem to have quite so much of.

I think the key point is not to confuse such things with the sensation of having freely willed the anticipations. The trap, it seems, is shut tight. Everything just 'happens (to you)'. Luckily, you might say, your machinery is pretty sophisticated, so your meat robot agency is quite advanced. We are, I think, talking about much the same thing. Compatibilists are really just determinists (who might also allow for random) who prefer not to emphasise the determinism (or the prior causality, which is probably a better word) which ultimately rules the day, it seems.

To me, the determinism/indeterminism thing is not the main issue.

An interesting aspect of it is to ask why any of these functions run in consciousness. I can imagine a system which does all the same things without being aware or self-aware of it. Even back in the 90's the chess-playing program Deep Blue no doubt ran 'anticipations', it just didn't experience them happening in consciousness. And I'm sure that Deep Blue is old hat nowadays, where computer systems, including AI ones, can run simulations routinely. In a nutshell, I'm not sure what role consciousness plays.

And away from the nuts and bolts issue is arguably the trickiest consequence, allocating personal responsibility and blame (or praise, but that isn't so much of a problem in society) to other meat robots.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Here is how one well-known dictionary defines "free".



The most "essential meanings" are those that come first but even if you look through the whole list, I can't see which definition you use.

Please refer me to the dictionary you use.
EB

It is right there in your quote.

Keep in mind that the relevant definition is related to context....of which your dictionary gives examples.

Copied from your source.
a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance:

11. Not bound, fastened, or attached:

b. Not subject to a given condition;

Excellent!

So, now, could you please explain carefully, as if to an idiot, how to deduce from those definitions that free will doesn't exist.

I'm already drooling with anticipation.
EB