There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[Emily Lake]

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.

Here's the crux: What the holy hell do you see as the DIFFERENCE between "will" and "free will"?

You've come back to this sort of a statement repeatedly, but for the love of all things shiny, I cannot figure out what your distinction is. I don't know what the hell you mean by "free will" as opposed to "will". I don't know what you think is different about those two things.

I've asked for an explanation before, and haven't seen one forthcoming. Please, again, explain what you see as the difference.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm restarting this as a separate thread as it's clearly not a good fit for the Freewill Poll.


I think that the overwhelming majority of the freewill problem comes from remaining committed to a series of misleading questions based upon some very archaic assumptions, most of which don't remotely stand up to analysis.

The easiest one to dispose of is the idea that we 'could have done otherwise all other conditions remaining the same'. There are literally no real world situations in which one could 'do otherwise all other conditions remaining the same'. This has nothing to do with any issues about freewill and everything to do with the impossibility of all other conditions remaining the same.

The fact is that any given state of the universe, or even the relevant light cone, can only occur once. More to the point a given agent can only occupy the same place at the same time once, not least because they would get in their own way. I'll say it again, it's impossible for all other conditions to ever be the same. We only ever get one shot at any given state of the universe.
As such this idea is always impossible for any given account of freewill. It can't even really be imagined, and as is so often the case with misleading thought experiments, one can only imagine imagining it. It's not only physically and practically impossible, it is simply logically impossible for the same thing to be in the same place at the same time twice.


The modified claim 'could have done otherwise almost all conditions remaining the same' really doesn't have the same force for obvious reasons. indeed, with the benefit of chaos theory and the realisation that there is always a sensitive dependence on initial conditions, the old adage that you cannot stand in the same river twice takes on additional force.

Even if it were possible, which it most certainly isn't, there's something inherently odd about wanting to do be able to do otherwise all other conditions remaining the same. Surely whatever form the will takes, you'd want it to be rational and that means that given identical circumstances you'd reach the same conclusion through whatever rational process you followed. However, this minor quibble pales into literal insignificance because you couldn't ever be in that situation.

Any objections?

Well-well-well, yes. Objections sure have now been expressed through this thread. What we can see is that different people have very different views, variously supported, i.e. well or not so well supported by evidence and arguments, so that it seems there's really a free will problem after all, or at least a real controversy.

I also observe that the OP assumes an implicite sense of free will which is only one possibility and with which very few people seem to agree anyway.

My own observation is that this issue seems too elicit too much ideology and therefore too few rational arguments, so that the conversation cannot progress. If, against that, anybody believes their view has evolved, if only a little bit, thanks to tell me, I will be surprised.

So, me, I think there's still a free will problem, however much ill-founded it may be, at least in some people's conception.
EB

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I have never understood this assumption. I've never understood why these discussions always fall back on some assumption of causeless action, as if it's impossible to have actual active decision making, anticipation, projections and simulations, learning, etc. that aren't 100% determined requires a lack of causation.

Let me back this up a bit with an analogy. Something can be indeterministic (no definitive singular outcome) and still have a cause. Something can consider and weigh options, make an actively conscious choice, and still have a cause. One-to-many is a possible mapping. There seems to be some underlying assumption that all of reality is serially linear... which I think is a rather limiting assumption. I don't think that all of reality conforms to "If A then B". I think a large chunk of it conforms to "If A then B, C, or D with varying likelihoods".

 

[Emily Lake]

"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.

Do you think it's reasonable to assume that a philosophy of mind formed in the late 1800s has not evolved or changes at all in the intervening 100+ years? Because, you know, most other science and thought has changed. Our understanding of how the mind works and the interaction between nature and nurture sure has changed.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I understand most of what you're saying, except for the parts that don't make sense. Like the assumption of will being different from free will in some as-yet undefined fashion, and the implicit assumption that one of those somehow involves uncaused action in a way that hasn't really been explained.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

In this case, it references the proxy-to-continuous nature of a conversation or live discussion. I know that in reality, there is a time lag with posts on a forum... but if you're following a discussion closely, it can easily take on a sensation of continuous flow of dialogue.

As an analogy, if you were having a real life conversation with someone, and had gone through a topic that they then asked for clarification on, you might say "haven't you been listening?" to indicate that listening, in that context, is a continuous occurrence throughout a flowing event.

That's my interpretation anyway... but I'm not a linguist so I could be incorrect.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

...

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

By that definition, nothing is free. The dog is not free of its chain under that definition... unless somehow the chain being released was uncaused. That is how you're using the term free.

But you have also proposed that a dog can be free of it's chain, under a different definition of free, have you not?

If that is so, then why do you insist that only one possible definition of free (and an extremely limiting one at that) can be used to describe will in this context? Why do you refuse to allow any other definition of free to be used?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I believe you're wrong on that. You might want to spend a few minutes doing some internet research on how fMRIs work.

 

[Emily Lake]

Now, what I am doing is applying the very same definition, not to 'healthy animals' or the absence of disease, but the brain and its workings in relation to 'will' - which is perfectly acceptable because the dictionary definition is in no way, shape or form restricted to 'healthy animals' or absence of disease, these being simply examples of usage.

I disagree. Where the definition referenced is "not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance"... you are applying the definition as if it read "not affected or restricted by any given condition or circumstance".

A <> Any

- - - Updated - - -

Free will: will that is free from the constraints of logic.

Lol

By that definition most humans have free will most of the time!

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

In this case, it references the proxy-to-continuous nature of a conversation or live discussion. I know that in reality, there is a time lag with posts on a forum... but if you're following a discussion closely, it can easily take on a sensation of continuous flow of dialogue.

As an analogy, if you were having a real life conversation with someone, and had gone through a topic that they then asked for clarification on, you might say "haven't you been listening?" to indicate that listening, in that context, is a continuous occurrence throughout a flowing event.

That's my interpretation anyway... but I'm not a linguist so I could be incorrect.

Thanks for trying.

I think your explanation, which I believe I understand 100%, doesn't apply here. A conversation is a one-piece event and one is supposed to listen in a continuous fashion if one is to take part in it. Posting is obviously not continuous, and reading other people's posts is not continuous either since you are likely to have been doing something else than reading the stuff as long as you read it at some point or that you had read it by now. The formulation should have been either, "Didn't you read?", or "Haven't you read?".

I can't remember now but I'm quite sure my question to DBT was rhetorical. Just to give an outlet to my displeasure at bad English, which is recurrent with this poster.

Sorry to have phrased it as if a genuine question so you took it literally.
EB

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

In this case, it references the proxy-to-continuous nature of a conversation or live discussion. I know that in reality, there is a time lag with posts on a forum... but if you're following a discussion closely, it can easily take on a sensation of continuous flow of dialogue.

As an analogy, if you were having a real life conversation with someone, and had gone through a topic that they then asked for clarification on, you might say "haven't you been listening?" to indicate that listening, in that context, is a continuous occurrence throughout a flowing event.

That's my interpretation anyway... but I'm not a linguist so I could be incorrect.

Thanks for trying.

I think your explanation, which I believe I understand 100%, doesn't apply here. A conversation is a one-piece event and one is supposed to listen in a continuous fashion if one is to take part in it. Posting is obviously not continuous, and reading other people's posts is not continuous either since you are likely to have been doing something else than reading the stuff as long as you read it at some point or that you had read it by now. The formulation should have been either, "Didn't you read?", or "Haven't you read?".

I think you're probably correct. I think it's more reflective of the acceptance of a discussion on-line to be a proxy for a one-piece conversation. Not technically correct, but colloquially acceptable.

I can't remember now but I'm quite sure my question to DBT was rhetorical. Just to give an outlet to my displeasure at bad English, which is recurrent with this poster.

Sorry to have phrased it as if a genuine question so you took it literally.
EB

I kinda thought you were having a go at DBT, but I wasn't sure. I figured I'd give an explanation, just in case you actually were asking. No harm done

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think it's more reflective of the acceptance of a discussion on-line to be a proxy for a one-piece conversation. Not technically correct, but colloquially acceptable.

I guess when you get to that point you should know it's time to take a break and go on a holiday. Too much posting is probably bad for you.

I kinda thought you were having a go at DBT, but I wasn't sure. I figured I'd give an explanation, just in case you actually were asking. No harm done

And I'm still open to the idea that this could be interpreted as something else than the wrong grammar. Only very sceptical.

Still, your explanation goes some way in that direction. It's a good explanation on the psychology of some posters.

You should try and help us understand untermensche's posts with your psychological acumen.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

I have never understood this assumption. I've never understood why these discussions always fall back on some assumption of causeless action, as if it's impossible to have actual active decision making, anticipation, projections and simulations, learning, etc. that aren't 100% determined requires a lack of causation2.

It's more a case, I think, that most humans seem to intuitively conceive of their abilities as often going or being able to go beyond 'stuff happening in or to them in an automatic way as the result of deterministic and/or random causes that they don't control'. Personally, I don't experience my existence this way. It feels otherwise. It feels vaguely as if there's a little cartesian homunculus just behind my eyes which can intervene to call at least some of the shots, when it needs to.

Were it not for this persistent (probable) psychological illusion, it's possible there would never be or have been much of a free will debate.

 

[Emily Lake]

And I'm still open to the idea that this could be interpreted as something else than the wrong grammar. Only very sceptical.

*Most* Americans have bad grammar. The grammar on this board tends to be a fair bit better than one experiences out in the real world. On the whole, my experience has been that posters on actual discussion forums (as opposed to Facebook or Reddit) as well as Skeptical/NonTheist/FreeThought forums have a tendency to be better educated, and that is reflected in their ability to effectively communicate their ideas. Some of these exchanged may be quite difficult to follow... but they're significantly better than you might find elsewhere. It should probably be noted that for the context, most of the posts have been quite well-stated. It's a complex abstract topic, and everyone brings their own nuance to the table.

Still, your explanation goes some way in that direction. It's a good explanation on the psychology of some posters.

I know that in many cases, especially for topics I'm deeply interested in, it can be quite easy to read it in the same cadence as I would a face-to-face conversation. I even find myself interrupting when I disagree! I'm certain I'm not the only person to have hit the reply button only a third of the way through someone's post...

You should try and help us understand untermensche's posts with your psychological acumen.

My psychology acumen runs out when I can no longer relate...

Actually, I think untermensche sometimes starts out fairly well, and often has a good point in the beginning. More than anything, it seems to be a lack of patience and some bubbling frustration that ends up making it difficult to follow his (?) posts.

 

[Emily Lake]

I have never understood this assumption. I've never understood why these discussions always fall back on some assumption of causeless action, as if it's impossible to have actual active decision making, anticipation, projections and simulations, learning, etc. that aren't 100% determined requires a lack of causation2.

It's more a case, I think, that most humans seem to intuitively conceive of their abilities as often going or being able to go beyond 'stuff happening in or to them in an automatic way as the result of deterministic and/or random causes that they don't control'. Personally, I don't experience my existence this way. It feels otherwise. It feels vaguely as if there's a little cartesian homunculus just behind my eyes which can intervene to call at least some of the shots, when it needs to.

Were it not for this persistent (probable) psychological illusion, it's possible there would never be or have been much of a free will debate.

I dunno about that last bit. Really, the free will versus determinism does stem from the Protestant revolution. And it was Luther an the rise of Protestantism that introduced the idea of determinism into the mix. The Catholic church (and its close cousins in the Orthodoxies, as well as Judaism) held to the notion of free will for a much longer time. Free will, as a concept, appears to be the base state throughout most religions and human history. Determinism is a new idea, and it is extremely deeply rooted in Protestant Christianity. The idea that life is something that happens to people, and that they are unable to do otherwise than they did... that's a very fundamentally Christian perspective to me. It's the abrogation of accountability, and the view of self as nothing more than a machine, helplessly swept along by the path of the wind. It just doesn't compute

 

[Emily Lake]

Okay folks, here's my challenge: Describe the process of invention in a no-free-will universe.

How does it work? How does a deterministic approach allow for invention of something new?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I have never understood this assumption. I've never understood why these discussions always fall back on some assumption of causeless action, as if it's impossible to have actual active decision making, anticipation, projections and simulations, learning, etc. that aren't 100% determined requires a lack of causation2.

It's more a case, I think, that most humans seem to intuitively conceive of their abilities as often going or being able to go beyond 'stuff happening in or to them in an automatic way as the result of deterministic and/or random causes that they don't control'. Personally, I don't experience my existence this way. It feels otherwise. It feels vaguely as if there's a little cartesian homunculus just behind my eyes which can intervene to call at least some of the shots, when it needs to.

Were it not for this persistent (probable) psychological illusion, it's possible there would never be or have been much of a free will debate.

I dunno about that last bit. Really, the free will versus determinism does stem from the Protestant revolution. And it was Luther an the rise of Protestantism that introduced the idea of determinism into the mix. The Catholic church (and its close cousins in the Orthodoxies, as well as Judaism) held to the notion of free will for a much longer time. Free will, as a concept, appears to be the base state throughout most religions and human history. Determinism is a new idea, and it is extremely deeply rooted in Protestant Christianity. The idea that life is something that happens to people, and that they are unable to do otherwise than they did... that's a very fundamentally Christian perspective to me. It's the abrogation of accountability, and the view of self as nothing more than a machine, helplessly swept along by the path of the wind. It just doesn't compute

The free will problem has been around since the ancient Greeks debated the issue. Augustine spent 40 years of his life trying to square free will and the Bible and at end of his life admitted it could not be done. The Council of Orange accepted that position, but it was abandoned in favor of semi-Pelagianism to save free will, which became RCC dogma. Luther resurrected Augustine's position and battled the RCC over the concept. His "The Bondage of the Will" written in 1519 abandoned free will on biblical grounds. The RCC's position was laid out at the Council of Trent. The Free Will problem has been a big issue in philosophical circles but I don't know the history of the modern debate. A medieval monk, Gottschalk of Orbis raised the issue following Augustine and spent 20 years in prison for his trouble. The Synod of Paris in 999CE condemned his position and reiterated the adoption of semi-Pelagianism.

 

[The AntiChris]

Okay folks, here's my challenge: Describe the process of invention in a no-free-will universe.

How does it work? How does a deterministic approach allow for invention of something new?

This would be easier to answer if you first explained why you think invention/creativity is incompatible with a deterministic universe.

 

[DBT]

That ''some of you'' find it unconvincing does not surprise me. Nor does it mean anything. The argument is straightforward. That you express the use of free as a ''dictionary definition' shows your unwillingness or resistance to understanding what I said.

The word free and the concept of freedom have a set of defined meanings relating to usage and context. The role of a dictionary being to provide a list of definitions relating to usage and context.

If the word 'free' or the concept of 'freedom' is not being fairly or accurately represented in the given definitions then that should be addressed and a more accurate definition proposed.

That is what ''some of you'' who object to my use of ''dictionary definitions' should do....provide your own definitions of free or freedom and describe why they are better and why they apply.

As it stands, I have seen no rational rebuttals, only emotional denials, snide innuendo and baseless dismissal.

A poor effort by this so called ''some of us'' members of the opposition.

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

You really should try to chill a little.

I look forward to seeing the links to other sources of your argument.

Chill? I am so relaxed that I practically melt into my easy chair. Whenever you read my response you need to consider who or what I am responding to. If my post appears aggressive it's because of the nature of the poster I have to deal with. I don't initiate hostility but I do respond to it as required.

 

[DBT]

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.

Here's the crux: What the holy hell do you see as the DIFFERENCE between "will" and "free will"?

I have described the distinction. Again, will is a brain responding to its stimuli in the form of a conscious prompt to act upon a particular stimuli. Will has no autonomy, no will of its own, it is neither able to be ''free to'' or be 'free from'' anything. It is whatever the brain is doing, nothing more, nothing less, hence has no freedom.

You've come back to this sort of a statement repeatedly, but for the love of all things shiny, I cannot figure out what your distinction is. I don't know what the hell you mean by "free will" as opposed to "will". I don't know what you think is different about those two things.

I've asked for an explanation before, and haven't seen one forthcoming. Please, again, explain what you see as the difference.

It's not difficult. The brain is the sole agent of all conscious and unconscious behaviours except nerve loop actions, but we don't call it a ''free brain'' because it is able to respond and act. The brain is a parallel information processor which responds according to architecture and available information, which has nothing to do with free will... which is a poorly defined term that does not relate to the mechanism of decision making.

But perhaps if you describe what you believe to be free will I could address your definition.

 

[DBT]

I am missing nothing.

The problem still lies with your apparent inability to grasp context and context related examples.

Therefore you still miss the point. While 'free from' is a legitimate part of the definition and is not being ignored or disputed, it is context that determines application in any given instance, an animal that is free of disease, etc.

So let's try to apply the word 'free' to 'will' just as shown the examples provided by the dictionary; ''free from'' --- so, what precisely is 'will' free from?'' Disease? Lumbago? Arthritis?....what? Will is free from what?

So, now, you do understand what is a given condition or circumstance, don't you?

Wake up Noddy, the given definition of free gives a couple of examples of conditions or circumstances, free from disease, etc.

Now try to apply exactly the same principles to 'will'

What condition or circumstance is 'will' free from?

What allows us to define 'will as being 'free?'

Talking of grasping context, nobody, not even Noddy, defines will as free. At most, you could say that talking of free will suggests that some of our will, i.e. the part of our will that is free, is free of something.

What is will free from? It should be something specific, something that actually relates to the concept of 'free will'

My will is free from so many things I couldn't possibly provide an exhaustive list. But I can put it in a nutshell: my will is free from most of whatever may be going on in the whole of the universe. Which sounds like good enough to make the use of "free will" legitimate. It's not even controversial.
EB

Oh, come on, can't you do better than that? My television is free from most of whatever may be going on in the whole of the universe, therefore my television is free, my television has free will.....the pretty coloured pictures change all the time when its running without apparent regulation or external control, ha ha.