There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[DBT]

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?

Inventions are related to pattern recognition (as with consciousness in general) and built upon understanding objects and their relationships in the external world, including knowledge acquired. Cave dwellers had no hope of inventing computers because the necessary background of acquired knowledge was not available to them.

Quote;
''Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes,and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.

Huettel et al. point out that their study identifies the role various regions of prefrontal cortex play in moment-to-moment processing of mental events in order to make predictions about future events. Thus implicit predictive models are formed which need to be continuously updated, the disruption of sequence would indicate that the PFC is engaged in a novelty response to pattern changes. As a third possible explanation, Ivry and Knight propose that activation of the prefrontal cortex may reflect the generation of hypotheses, since the formulation of an hypothesis is an essential feature of higher-level cognition.
A monitoring of participants awareness during pattern recognition could provide a test of the PFC’s ability to formulate hypotheses concerning future outcomes.''

 

[Speakpigeon]

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'

You don't really try. Conversation requires a modicum of good 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.

Me, I don't know of any television set alleging free will. Humans on the contrary do it, and quite frequently.

And you're obviously wrong here. Again, I can only assume it's because you don't even try. You can't be that stupid. It must be your lack of will.

It's obviously very easy to explain what appears on a television screen as a direct function of the electromagnetic waves received by the TV set. A television set can even be made to display images directly reflecting electromagnetic waves coming in from the whole universe (look at the "snow" effect, or "static", on a dark screen). Even the fact that a TV set can be switched on and off using a switch which is itself part of the TV set. There's no equivalent with our mind. No switch button. No electromagnetic waves or anything remotely equivalent. If you want to stop a mind you have to stop the person being an operational human being in the first place. The best way to explain what's going on in the mind of very nearly all human beings is indeed what's going on in their brain. However, our brain is just a part of our own body, and therefore just one part of ourselves. So the fact that the mind is nothing more than something done by the brain doesn't affect the reality of our freedom as a human being. It would be as stupid as arguing that we don't really ever run because it's our legs that do all the running. How stupid would that be?

I also think that the idea that free will means that people think their will is independent from their body is an idea which is essentially ideologically motivated. Anybody can very easily realise by themselves that what's going on in their mind can be seriously affected by the state of their own body. We become essentially unconscious whenever we fall asleep. We are definitely unconscious when knocked out during a fight for example. Our ability to think straight is often impaired by illness, various ailments, or even just sickness. We all know that. It's part of our daily experience starting from a very young age and things don't improve with time in that respect.

It's clear to me that free will became an ideological issue well before science could chip in and unfortunately, some scientists have just jumped on board that idiotic wagon. And you're going on and on and on fighting ideological phantoms, à la Don Quixote. Just pathetic. Most people don't align themselves with any side of this idiotic debate. They just think of free fill as their degree of autonomy as physical organism functioning in a material world. Sure, few people would be able to articulate this view properly but I have zero good reason to assume that's not what they believe, except for the small minority who are still influenced by religion or politics, or ideology generally, like you and a few others here.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

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?

Machines, in our case meat machines, are equipped with complicated algorithms or something akin to that which can automatically churn out new combinations of stuff.

Also, I think you are still conflating afreewillism with determinism.

 

[ruby sparks]

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

Ok.

But what I mainly meant was, whoever has taken up this or that position, without the experience of the sensation I described, we might not be having much of a free will debate. It is, arguably, imo, one of the central issues. Even after one can partially and fleetingly and intellectually grasp the idea that it's an illusion, it tends to return and persist, and as such belief in it is arguably even more intractable than belief in god (and other superstitions generally).

And tangentally, compatibilist free will, for instance, broadly agrees that we are robots which run automatically, that everything we think and do is the result of a series of prior physical causes and that the sensation of personal control is an illusion.

 

[bilby]

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?

New invention in a universe without free will is just as impossible as morality in a universe without a divine creator.

 

[ruby sparks]

New invention in a universe without free will is just as impossible as morality in a universe without a divine creator.

Hm. I would cite evolutionary processes just for for starters.

 

[untermensche]

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?

Machines, in our case meat machines, are equipped with complicated algorithms or something akin to that which can automatically churn out new combinations of stuff.

Also, I think you are still conflating afreewillism with determinism.

Point out one of these algorithms.

What are you talking about?

Algorithms exist in human programming.

There is no evidence of them in the brain.

Creativity is two things, it is both having a new idea and recognizing it is something new.

The freedom is not so much in the having of a new idea, ideas pop into our minds without use of the "will". The freedom is in the recognition that the new idea could be useful or interesting.

Our free will is not that we have ideas. It is expressed in the ideas we cling to and the ideas we reject.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And tangentally, compatibilist free will, for instance, broadly agrees that we are robots which run automatically, that everything we think and do is the result of a series of prior physical causes and that the sensation of personal control is an illusion.

My own position about the world is straightforwardly deterministic, at least until somebody comes up with something more convincing, and yet I see free will as a reality, meaning that I see our sense of personal control as not illusory at all.

I can choose to raise my finger and do it. Nothing terribly difficult to understand and definitely nothing illusory about that,. Something even very easy to verify scientifically. Who is going to say that it's not me who raised my finger? Obviously, there are situations when this wouldn't apply, for example if I was dead. But as long as I am a normally functioning human being then I have the free will necessary to decide to raise my finger and do it.

And that's the notion of free will I believe most people have, even if it's without really thinking about it.

And I take people who differ to be mainly ideologues or people unduly influenced by ideologues. Unless they can explain themselves properly and I have yet to see that.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

New invention in a universe without free will is just as impossible as morality in a universe without a divine creator.

Hm. I would cite evolutionary processes just for for starters.

You may just as well cite nature itself starting with the Big Bang and all the rest. Everything that came after the Big Bang had to be new at least at some point in time. The first atom, the first molecule, the first bacteria, the first e-mail or whatever. What would be different from that in what humans do with their free will? The only thing that we do that seems to stand out from nature is subjective experience and then it may well be that it' just because we don't know enough about nature or about ourselves.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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?

The post below was initially a reply to ruby sparks but I guess it's good enough as a reply to your post.
EB

New invention in a universe without free will is just as impossible as morality in a universe without a divine creator.

Hm. I would cite evolutionary processes just for for starters.

You may just as well cite nature itself starting with the Big Bang and all the rest. Everything that came after the Big Bang had to be new at least at some point in time. The first atom, the first molecule, the first bacteria, the first e-mail or whatever. What would be different from that in what humans do with their free will? The only thing that we do that seems to stand out from nature is subjective experience and then it may well be that it' just because we don't know enough about nature or about ourselves.
EB

 

[untermensche]

And that's the notion of free will I believe most people have, even if it's without really thinking about it...

It's more than a notion. It is the experience.

So either the experience is a trick for some reason or the experience reflects what is going on.

Why would a trick be necessary is the question.

Just move the arm without making the mind think it is doing it. The brain controls respiration most of the time just fine without making the mind think it is doing it. Why create the move and the tricking of the mind too?

 

[Speakpigeon]

And that's the notion of free will I believe most people have, even if it's without really thinking about it...

Remember, I don't truly understand your English, so it's really just a waste of time to reply to my posts.

It's more than a notion. It is the experience.

Our experience is not something "more" than our notion. These are just different things.

Our notion of free will is of course based on our experience.

My argument is that most people have the same notion of free will and that the kind of free will these people think they have is indeed something real. Have you at least understood that?

So either the experience is a trick for some reason or the experience reflects what is going on.

A trick?!

That's the wrong word in this context. This is getting tedious. You should expand you English lexicon.

Free will as we experience it is necessarily, not a trick, but an appearance. Just like the red rose our eyes tell us is just in front of us is really an appearance. That being said, it's still more reasonable to assume there's really something there, even if it is very unlike any red rose. Same thing for free will. There's something which is free will even if it isn't really like what we think. Unfortunately, we can only discuss the appearances of things rather than the things themselves. It's fine with me, I like red roses very much. So, there's an argument for saying free will doesn't exist as we think of it but once we've said that we have to go back to the kind of free will we know, and again it's fine with me. So, yes, free will is not a trick but an appearance, but it's still okay to take this appearance at face value. If anybody disagrees, then they shouldn't take these very words, this post, this forum, this world, at face value. Not exactly the real clever thing to be doing.

Why would a trick be necessary is the question.

Wrong question. Our brain can only work through providing appearances of things. Nothing like a trick.

If you can't understand that, go back to square one and stop wasting my time.

Just move the arm without making the mind think it is doing it. The brain controls respiration most of the time just fine without making the mind think it is doing it. Why create the move and the tricking of the mind too?

Not a trick. The appearance of a freely willed movement. Respiration is common to many organisms, it's been honed as a process for a very, very long time, even in evolutionary terms. Our body can do it without our conscious control. Thinking is less common among species and much more recent in evolutionary terms. It's also a more versatile function. The control of our arms and hands and fingers is probably much more complex than the control of our respiration. So, it should be no surprise that respiration should usually take place without our conscious control. And we also don't know how it feels for the part of our brain that's involved in controlling our respiration. Maybe there's something somewhat like a person having control of our respiration and therefore the appearance of free will.

I guess all this will be lost on you, though. So, go on, try to surprise me.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

And tangentally, compatibilist free will, for instance, broadly agrees that we are robots which run automatically, that everything we think and do is the result of a series of prior physical causes and that the sensation of personal control is an illusion.

My own position about the world is straightforwardly deterministic, at least until somebody comes up with something more convincing, and yet I see free will as a reality, meaning that I see our sense of personal control as not illusory at all.

I can choose to raise my finger and do it. Nothing terribly difficult to understand and definitely nothing illusory about that,. Something even very easy to verify scientifically. Who is going to say that it's not me who raised my finger? Obviously, there are situations when this wouldn't apply, for example if I was dead. But as long as I am a normally functioning human being then I have the free will necessary to decide to raise my finger and do it.

And that's the notion of free will I believe most people have, even if it's without really thinking about it.

And I take people who differ to be mainly ideologues or people unduly influenced by ideologues. Unless they can explain themselves properly and I have yet to see that.
EB

First, the difference between humans and robots is that they lack the ability to question why they do things. Humans have that ability and it's the basis for what we refer to as the will. My opinion is that when we describe it as "free" will we actually mean we simply don't know why we do or refrain from doing something. That's all. And it's because there are thousands of reasons as well as long forgotten ones for everything we do. Only when there is some singular, compelling need to act do we say it was not a free choice even though there was a choice made.

ETA -

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?

New invention in a universe without free will is just as impossible as morality in a universe without a divine creator.

Hm. I would cite evolutionary processes just for for starters.

Yes, mutation with natural selection fits the requirements for "free" will. I'd suggest we call it mutable will.

 

[The AntiChris]

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.

I think you're being a little over-sensitive. Here's my question again:

In order to help us understand your argument can you cite any other source (literature/serious philosopher) for your 'disproof of free will by dictionary definition'? I've never seen this argument made by anyone other than you.

I'd genuinely like to know if anyone else you know of argues that it is logically problematic to call will 'free'. Possibly someone else's formulation of the argument might make more sense to me?

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Yes, exactly the problem.

Thanks for that.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Remember, I don't truly understand your English, so it's really just a waste of time to reply to my posts.

You have set out to prove this here.

It's more than a notion. It is the experience.

Our experience is not something "more" than our notion.

Yes it is. I can have a notion about anything. I can have a notion that the baby Jesus is going to cradle me in his arms when I die.

This notion is much less than an experience. In terms of how much weight we should give it.

And if everybody has the same experience we should at the least believe the experience is happening. It is the truth.

So either the experience is a trick for some reason or the experience reflects what is going on.

A trick?!

That's the wrong word in this context.

No it is not.

If we experience that we are "willing" the hand to move but are not then our experience of it is a trick of some kind.

We are being tricked into thinking we are moving the hand at will.

This is getting tedious.

You ARE tedious. The very definition.

If you just stick to ideas and stop pretending you can tell me something about my language you will be less tedious.

 

[Speakpigeon]

First, the difference between humans and robots is that they lack the ability to question why they do things. Humans have that ability and it's the basis for what we refer to as the will. My opinion is that when we describe it as "free" will we actually mean we simply don't know why we do or refrain from doing something. That's all. And it's because there are thousands of reasons as well as long forgotten ones for everything we do.

We simply don't know why we do or refrain from doing something?

That's definitely an interesting angle but I'm not sure I get your meaning!

Whenever I raise my finger I will usually have a good reason to do it, say to ask for the bill. Isn't that enough? We will also call on the idea of free will more often in situations where we have to deliberate with ourselves, say, to decide to marry someone or to sentence somebody to the death penalty. Things we do without even thinking about it we're unlikely to think of them as having required free will. Both seem to contradict your perspective. Obviously, if you're talking about the neurological precursors of our decisions, it's true we don't know them, but, equally, the neurological precursors of our decisions are not why we choose to do what we do (when we do). The reason why I raise my finger is because I want to signal I want to pay the bill. I'm free not to raise my finger and it's me who makes this decision. That my brain is the one crucial organ to somehow produce this decision doesn't change that fact. It's me who makes that decision and I'm free to make it or not.

Personally, I call reasons things I can articulate (think of "reasoning"), so if I can't remember something it's definitely not a reason. Maybe it's a cause. And I would agree that I'm unlikely to know any of the neurological causes that lead to my decision.

Only when there is some singular, compelling need to act do we say it was not a free choice even though there was a choice made.

This also shows that "free" doesn't mean "free from neurological causes" as DBT seems to take it.

We use the word "free" in all sorts of contexts and in a way which is the result of the very pragmatic, and even practical, attitude people usually take in their linguistic communications. In very nearly all uses of the word "free", it means free from something in particular, or, as the definition selected by DBT himself puts it, not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance. We only need one such condition or circumstance to justify our use of the word "free". So, most of the time, people will talk of free will as will not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance, and they are the ones to choose what that condition or circumstance will be.

Where DBT would have been justified in his criticism is against people who specify free will to be will not affected or restricted by neurological causes.

Hélas, he never actually articulated this, ever, and he definitely doesn't understand English very well, and in particular the dictionary definition a "free" he himself selected. Bad luck.
EB

 

[bilby]

New invention in a universe without free will is just as impossible as morality in a universe without a divine creator.

Hm. I would cite evolutionary processes just for for starters.

To what end would you make such a citation? How do evolutionary processes in any way change or challenge the truth value of my statement?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

That's waaaaaayyyyyy more than I know about philosophical history... let alone the philosophical history of this specific topic. I bow to your expertise.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I have enough experience with these sorts of discussions to realize that if I led with that, I would never actually get a description of how it is compatible with a deterministic universe from anyone. All I would get is a critique of how my view of it is wrong . So I will politely decline, and reiterate my request.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

So... will exists and humans have will... but will doesn't have will so it's not free?