There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[DBT]

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

Have you not been reading? You have obviously seen my definition of ''free''....now if you just scroll your beady little eyes a bit lower you can see the standard argument against free will, ie, that which is caused has no option, it is fixed, therefore it is not free.

Will, being shaped, formed and generated by neural networks, has no options, therefore cannot be free. Will does what it has been formed to do, nothing more, nothing less.


"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.

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.

 

[untermensche]

"beady" means small.

To insult and say "beady little" is a redundancy.

When I change from perceiving one cube to another cube at will when looking at a Necker cube what restricts my ability to do it?

How is it not completely free?

How were the ideas you're trying to sell not freely chosen by you?

 

[ruby sparks]

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

I don't think DBT is insisting on a perfectly deterministic universe. He/she seems to allow for the possibility random, as a non-deterministic cause.

He/she is merely saying that a non-deterministic outcome is still not 'free will' and I tend to agree (arguments about terms notwithstanding).

It might be said that we, DBT and I, are both talking about a 'caused universe'.

At the end of the day, there are options (and maybe randomness can throw up 'new' ones), it's just that they are not freely selected at the point of any decision 'we' (our systems) make.

Ok, there are more 'degrees of freedom' (a nice machine term) to select. Whatever.

 

[DBT]

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

I don't think DBT is insisting on a perfectly deterministic universe. He/she seems to allow for the possibility random, as a non-deterministic cause.

He/she is merely saying that a non-deterministic outcome is still not 'free will' and I tend to agree (arguments about terms notwithstanding).

It might be said that we, DBT and I, are both talking about a 'caused universe'.

At the end of the day, there are options (and maybe randomness can throw up 'new' ones), it's just that they are not freely selected at the point of decision.

It's a He. And what you say about my position is correct. Also, glad that someone actually does understand what I said.

 

[DBT]

"beady" means small.

To insult and say "beady little" is a redundancy.

When I change from perceiving one cube to another cube at will when looking at a Necker cube what restricts my ability to do it?

How is it not completely free?

How were the ideas you're trying to sell not freely chosen by you?

So a bit of rhetoric is not allowed? As for the rest of your post.....you should understand by now that it is each and every instance of a decision being made that is determined (or caused by random fluctuations) in that instance, and that all amendments or regrets come later with fresh information being available to the brain and not some notion of freedom of will. Time, change and the capacity to learn, not free will.

 

[untermensche]

"beady" means small.

To insult and say "beady little" is a redundancy.

When I change from perceiving one cube to another cube at will when looking at a Necker cube what restricts my ability to do it?

How is it not completely free?

How were the ideas you're trying to sell not freely chosen by you?

So a bit of rhetoric is not allowed? As for the rest of your post.....you should understand by now that it is each and every instance of a decision being made that is determined (or caused by random fluctuations) in that instance, and that all amendments or regrets come later with fresh information being available to the brain and not some notion of freedom of will. Time, change and the capacity to learn, not free will.

There is nothing random about it. One cube then the other. At will.

I look at the cube and change my perception of it at will.

I can do it over and over at my choosing.

It is really this way with many perceptions we have on a daily basis. Our will has an effect on what we perceive. It is not simply a passive process.

Your claim that something random is involved lacks evidence.

 

[fromderinside]

There is nothing random about it. One cube then the other. At will.

I look at the cube and change my perception of it at will.

I can do it over and over at my choosing.

It is really this way with many perceptions we have on a daily basis. Our will has an effect on what we perceive. It is not simply a passive process.

Your claim that something random is involved lacks evidence.

If you conduct the experiment you'll find that at some point one loses track of what one saw last resulting in one seeing the same thing several times in a row. You are confusing by inserting will and choosing when it's obvious that neither are needed to explain seeing one or the other or even when one is seen relative to the other since ultimately neither is explanative.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm already drooling with anticipation.
EB

Have you not been reading?

Sorry, you know I'm French? Soooo, I was wondering why did you just used this present perfect continuous form here? I mean, why not use instead, say, the past simple, "Did you not read (what I just wrote)", or a present perfect, like "have you not read (what I just wrote)".

An explanation from you would have tremendous value for me, to help improve my English, you see.

You have obviously seen my definition of ''free''....

Ah, back to the present perfect now. That, I can understand straight away.

And, no, I didn't see it because I couldn't figure out which one you thought you were using.

now if you just scroll your beady little eyes a bit lower

Sorry, I'm lost against! This is silly, I know. It's just that I don't understand your suggestion that I scrolled my eyes. You just don't scroll eyes in careful English. You scroll things like pages and screens. Recently, people have been able to scroll with their eyes (on their phone, for example), but that's different.

That being said, I will guess that beady eyes might help with threads, or possibly just with this one, which is good.

Still, how did you figure I had beady eyes? That's uncanny! I live hidden away in a dark cave because of my monstrous appearance. No one knows I have beady eyes!

you can see the standard argument against free will,

I couldn't care less about any standard argument. I asked for your argument from one definition.

ie, that which is caused has no option, it is fixed, therefore it is not free.

Well, that's awfully awful but there's nothing about that in the definition you just said you're using.

Will, being shaped, formed and generated by neural networks, has no options, therefore cannot be free. Will does what it has been formed to do, nothing more, nothing less.

Well, well, well, that's really awfully awful but there's nothing about that at all in the definition you just said you're using.

"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.

Sorry, your quote is incomplete. I can't infer anything from that I'm afraid.

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

Ah, excellent! I know exactly where your problem is now. It's clear you just can't read properly what's just written on the page. You only had to "scroll your eyes" a little bit to get this definition right. But obviously you didn't "scroll your eyes" because in careful English you just don't scroll eyes at all. Bad luck.

Okay, now, I really don't know why you don't get this definition right.

So, just to make sure what the problem is, could you please post again item 3. a., without, you know, leaving anything out?

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.

Yeah, well, I take it this is what you just called "the standard argument against free will", but I can't be bothered with that unless there'd be a clear and explicit connection with the definition. I mean, the definition given in the dictionary. And right now, there's no such connection. none at all.

Now, I'm still uncertain whether you really, genuinely don't understand the definition or, just possibly you're trying to make it out as if it meant something else than what it really means, which would be bad in my book about intellectual honesty and such. So, please post again item 3. a. as it is given in the extract I provided. That shouldn't be too difficult and then, we're out of the wood I'm sure.

And thanks for your patience.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

"beady" means small.

No. It means "small, round, and shiny or glittering". So, it only implies "small".

To insult and say "beady little" is a redundancy.

Not quite. Small eyes are just small eyes. Nothing to worry about.

"Little eyes" is often suggestive of something else, possibly nasty or indicative of some character flaw. That was the idea! There's definitely room for improvement as to your reading skills! But keep at it, it will come!


________________________________

When I change from perceiving one cube to another cube at will when looking at a Necker cube what restricts my ability to do it?

How is it not completely free?

Hey! That's just excellent! I'm so proud o' you! That's just so excellent. Bra-vo! That's exactly it. That's just sooo perfect!


I can only apologise here for my past critics of you. Sorry-sorry-sorry. You're completely redeemed by this one-line argument. It's almost unbelievable that you should be the same one repeating ad nauseam idiotic arguments (sorry again) about infinity and then this bright shining angel of an argument! So beautifully bright and shining! I guess this goes on to show how complex is the human mind. We should withhold our judgement much longer than we do. We need to learn to be patient enough and we will be rewarded by little gems like this one. Thanks, UM!
EB

 

[untermensche]

"beady" means small.

No. It means "small, round, and shiny or glittering". So, it only implies "small".

Your weakness in English is excusable.

What I wrote can be interpreted by a true English speaker to just mean small is included in the definition, which it is.

It is a redundancy to say "small little eyes".

Maybe in French you are better.

 

[untermensche]

There is nothing random about it. One cube then the other. At will.

I look at the cube and change my perception of it at will.

I can do it over and over at my choosing.

It is really this way with many perceptions we have on a daily basis. Our will has an effect on what we perceive. It is not simply a passive process.

Your claim that something random is involved lacks evidence.

If you conduct the experiment you'll find that at some point one loses track of what one saw last resulting in one seeing the same thing several times in a row. You are confusing by inserting will and choosing when it's obvious that neither are needed to explain seeing one or the other or even when one is seen relative to the other since ultimately neither is explanative.

The experiment cannot be conducted.

How do we objectively know which cube I am perceiving?

 

[DBT]

"beady" means small.

To insult and say "beady little" is a redundancy.

When I change from perceiving one cube to another cube at will when looking at a Necker cube what restricts my ability to do it?

How is it not completely free?

How were the ideas you're trying to sell not freely chosen by you?

So a bit of rhetoric is not allowed? As for the rest of your post.....you should understand by now that it is each and every instance of a decision being made that is determined (or caused by random fluctuations) in that instance, and that all amendments or regrets come later with fresh information being available to the brain and not some notion of freedom of will. Time, change and the capacity to learn, not free will.

There is nothing random about it. One cube then the other. At will.

I look at the cube and change my perception of it at will.

I can do it over and over at my choosing.

It is really this way with many perceptions we have on a daily basis. Our will has an effect on what we perceive. It is not simply a passive process.

Your claim that something random is involved lacks evidence.

Your response does not relate to what I said. Sorry, maybe read more carefully and try again.

 

[DBT]

Sorry, you know I'm French? Soooo, I was wondering why did you just used this present perfect continuous form here? I mean, why not use instead, say, the past simple, "Did you not read (what I just wrote)", or a present perfect, like "have you not read (what I just wrote)".

An explanation from you would have tremendous value for me, to help improve my English, you see.

Something certainly needs improving. No need for me to say what. I'm sure you can work it out. Then again, maybe not. It's probably a blind spot that explanations cannot cure.

Yeah, well, I take it this is what you just called "the standard argument against free will", but I can't be bothered with that unless there'd be a clear and explicit connection with the definition. I mean, the definition given in the dictionary. And right now, there's no such connection. none at all.

There are many clear and explicit explanations. There are some who either refuse to acknowledge the existence of valid arguments against the idea of free wil because it puts to question their own precious assumptions, or else simply cannot grasp the principles involved.

Now, I'm still uncertain whether you really, genuinely don't understand the definition or, just possibly you're trying to make it out as if it meant something else than what it really means, which would be bad in my book about intellectual honesty and such. So, please post again item 3. a. as it is given in the extract I provided. That shouldn't be too difficult and then, we're out of the wood I'm sure.
EB

The definition of freedom is abundantly clear. As is the argument that something that is determined or caused by elements beyond its control, is not free.

Maybe you can try to redefine the meaning of ''free'' (or freedom) so that your definition includes determinism and non chosen causality as a part of freedom.

Try it, maybe you'll succeed. But I doubt it.

Meanwhile....that which is determined, that which is formed by prior causes, being fixed at the point of formation, is certainly not free.

Protest all you like, use your snide innuendo that is designed to give readers the impression of wisdom and great understanding, but you still have no case and you are still wrong.

 

[fromderinside]

How do we objectively know which cube I am perceiving?

fMRI.

 

[Speakpigeon]

"beady" means small.

No. It means "small, round, and shiny or glittering". So, it only implies "small".

Your weakness in English is excusable.

You'd need to evidence the weaknesses you're alleging and explain how they are weaknesses at all.

Go on, make my day.

Me, I could have long pointed out your mistakes. I never did because I thought it more likely you were not a native speaker given how big the mistakes in your posts.

What I wrote can be interpreted by a true English speaker to just mean small is included in the definition, which it is.

There is no "true" English speaker. There are only native and non-native ones. Are you a native speaker?

Alternatively, you could say someone speaks or doesn't speak "good" or "correct" English, but each of these alternatives may well be true of both native and non-native speakers.

Yours is definitely bad English.

It is a redundancy to say "small little eyes".

I already explained why it is not necessarily so. You'd need to argue your case but apparently you're just too thick to go beyond repeating your claim. You're certainly not articulate enough to explain anything well enough. Still, you should try it sometimes.

Maybe in French you are better.

French generally appears to be really more difficult in certain ways than is English. This is apparent just listening to radios in French and in English. Even native French speakers make really many mistakes in French. So, I wouldn't want to bet that my French is really better than my English, even though I'm not only a native but also a competent speaker in French.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Something certainly needs improving. No need for me to say what. I'm sure you can work it out. Then again, maybe not. It's probably a blind spot that explanations cannot cure.



There are many clear and explicit explanations. There are some who either refuse to acknowledge the existence of valid arguments against the idea of free wil because it puts to question their own precious assumptions, or else simply cannot grasp the principles involved.

Now, I'm still uncertain whether you really, genuinely don't understand the definition or, just possibly you're trying to make it out as if it meant something else than what it really means, which would be bad in my book about intellectual honesty and such. So, please post again item 3. a. as it is given in the extract I provided. That shouldn't be too difficult and then, we're out of the wood I'm sure.
EB

The definition of freedom is abundantly clear. As is the argument that something that is determined or caused by elements beyond its control, is not free.

Maybe you can try to redefine the meaning of ''free'' (or freedom) so that your definition includes determinism and non chosen causality as a part of freedom.

Try it, maybe you'll succeed. But I doubt it.

Meanwhile....that which is determined, that which is formed by prior causes, being fixed at the point of formation, is certainly not free.

Protest all you like, use your snide innuendo that is designed to give readers the impression of wisdom and great understanding, but you still have no case and you are still wrong.

Okay, so now I'm confident you're unwilling to learn and you're even unwilling to argue your views properly.

It's also more likely than not that you know exactly what you did wrong in your use of the definition I provided.

Just to help people understand this point, I put side by side the original definition, first, and then the version of it you've been using:

3.
a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance: a healthy animal, free of disease; people free from need.

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

Clearly, something is missing in your version.

Either your competence in English is really poor or you're being straightforwardly intellectually dishonest. Or both, obviously. Either way, not good.
EB

 

[untermensche]

How do we objectively know which cube I am perceiving?

fMRI.

There is no way to tell which cube I am perceiving with such a blunt and crude instrument.

An fMRI cannot read minds. It cannot tell us what a person is perceiving.

You need to stick to science and move away from your science fiction.

 

[untermensche]

What I wrote can be interpreted by a true English speaker to just mean small is included in the definition, which it is.

There is no "true" English speaker. There are only native and non-native ones. Are you a native speaker?

Alternatively, you could say someone speaks or doesn't speak "good" or "correct" English, but each of these alternatives may well be true of both native and non-native speakers.

Yours is definitely bad English.

I am a true English speaker.

You are not.

This is why you don't even comprehend simple things.

If I say "The weekend means fun" have I given a definition of "weekend"?

Your English sucks!

 

[untermensche]

There is nothing random about it. One cube then the other. At will.

I look at the cube and change my perception of it at will.

I can do it over and over at my choosing.

It is really this way with many perceptions we have on a daily basis. Our will has an effect on what we perceive. It is not simply a passive process.

Your claim that something random is involved lacks evidence.

Your response does not relate to what I said. Sorry, maybe read more carefully and try again.

You need to address my point.

When I switch from perceiving one cube to perceiving another at will what am I using to make the switch?

How long and hard will you avoid addressing this?

With your stubborn will.

 

[fromderinside]

How do we objectively know which cube I am perceiving?

fMRI.

There is no way to tell which cube I am perceiving with such a blunt and crude instrument.

An fMRI cannot read minds. It cannot tell us what a person is perceiving.

You need to stick to science and move away from your science fiction.

Well King, another case of untermenche boating down denile. This case is closed.