There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[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.

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?

It might depend on what you meant by 'new invention'.

 

[bilby]

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?

It might depend on what you meant by 'new invention'.

I don't think it does; Pretty much any similar phrase or word does nothing to change the truth value of my statement.

The evolution of new species in a universe without free will is just as impossible as morality in a universe without a divine creator.

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

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

The discovery of new facts in a universe without free will is just as impossible as morality in a universe without a divine creator.

All of these statements are (as far as I can tell) true.

 

[ruby sparks]

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?

It might depend on what you meant by 'new invention'.

I don't think it does; Pretty much any similar phrase or word does nothing to change the truth value of my statement.

The evolution of new species in a universe without free will is just as impossible as morality in a universe without a divine creator.

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

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

The discovery of new facts in a universe without free will is just as impossible as morality in a universe without a divine creator.

All of these statements are (as far as I can tell) true.

Hm. First of all, regardless of the second half (regarding morality) you seem to be saying that evolution is impossible unless there is free will.

So maybe I have to ask you what you mean by free will. Bacteria would have it? Plants?

 

[bilby]

I don't think it does; Pretty much any similar phrase or word does nothing to change the truth value of my statement.

The evolution of new species in a universe without free will is just as impossible as morality in a universe without a divine creator.

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

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

The discovery of new facts in a universe without free will is just as impossible as morality in a universe without a divine creator.

All of these statements are (as far as I can tell) true.

Hm. First of all, regardless of the second half (regarding morality) you seem to be saying that evolution is impossible unless there is free will.

So maybe I have to ask you what you mean by free will.

If you disregard half of what I say, then it is unsurprising that you reach an incorrect conclusion about my meaning.

Morality is in NO WAY impossible in a universe without a divine creator. New invention in a universe without free will is just as impossible as that.

I am rather disappointed that I needed to explain that; I would have thought it was fairly obvious.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok. I didn't quite understand you correctly then.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Pretty much agreed on that viewpoint.

 

[ruby sparks]

Does anyone know where the facepalm icon is, if there is one available here?

 

[bilby]

Does anyone know where the facepalm icon is, if there is one available here?

it's at

:picardfacepalm:

 

[ruby sparks]

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

Pretty much agreed on that viewpoint.

Never mind. This is probably more appropriate than a facepalm:









Well, perhaps I should elaborate on that.

Here goes...

 

[DBT]

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

Yet you yourself display little or no good will toward your opponents... but still expect to receive good will from them. You reap what you sow.

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

According to your definition, anything that is free from something is itself free. Free from something that is not even related to the object is not an argument for freedom. Your will may free from the influence of the Moon, but that doesn't make it 'free will'

Just out of curiosity, what is this 'free will' that you say is quite frequent in humans? Can you give one example?

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.

You are a sad man. It was just an absurd example made to highlight your absurd claim for free will, that will is free from practically the rest of the universe, or words to that effect. I know that televisions don't have will, nor do they have freedom....nor does will given that it is what it is and does what it does according to brain state and condition, not freedom.

 

[DBT]

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.

No sensitivity. I just respond to the tone and content of a post.

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?

What do you think the debate on free will is about? Imaginary terms and conditions, or the use of accepted definitions of words that are being used?

The word 'will' means something. I have given a definition of will and its role in cognition. If you dispute my definition, you should describe why. You don't do that, your way entails vague arm waving and odd disconnected objections.

The word 'free' means something. I have given definitions of 'free' several times. If you don't agree with the given definitions, you should explain why instead of the strange objection of

As for your ''I'd genuinely like to know if anyone else you know of argues that it is logically problematic to call will 'free' - this in odd thing to say considering that the ongoing debate on free will is specifically related to the issue of no free will as opposed to free will. Two sides arguing for and against the proposition.

Possibly someone else's formulation of the argument might make more sense to me?

Highly doubtful. I have already provided numerous quotes, descriptions, arguments and evidence by different authors, Hallet, etc, to no avail. My argument rests on all of this. It is no different.

Basically;

Will is a reflection of brain state and condition
Will has no autonomy.
Freedom requires the ability to have done otherwise under any given conditions.
Will has no regulative control of its own.
Will is not free.

 

[DBT]

As for invention requires free will --- Monkeys have Will. Monkeys are poor inventors......it is not will, free or otherwise that enables invention but brain complexity, the necessary wiring. Will is merely the byproduct. Monkeys swing in trees, humans invent.

 

[ruby sparks]

DBT, as much as I agree with your argument against calling human agency capacities free will, I agree with AntiChris's main point, that we cannot say it is not possible, using some definition, one which does not mean completely free (or free ultimately at all, arguably), to call it free will. And that, as far as I can see, is now AntiChris's only point. And on that point he is correct. You and I may agree that it is not a very good term, for a variety of reasons, but that's all.

There is no point in repeating over and over why you reason that it should not be called free will, because all he is objecting to is you saying that it is not even possible to call it that, when it clearly is.

If the two of you ever got over that hump, you could move on to discussing the merits and demerits of using or not using the term. But at the moment reading your exchanges feels like watching the movie Groundhog Day over and over.

So, imo, all you say to AntiChris is, yes, it is possible, using this or that definition or this or that reasoning, to call it free will, but that you think it's not a good term.

 

[bilby]

DBT, as much as I agree with your argument against calling human agency capacities free will, I agree with AntiChris's main point, that we cannot say it is not possible, using some definition, one which does not mean completely free (or free ultimately at all, arguably), to call it free will. And that, as far as I can see, is now AntiChris's only point. And on that point he is correct. You and I may agree that it is not a very good term, for a variety of reasons, but that's all.

There is no point in repeating over and over why you reason that it should not be called free will, because all he is objecting to is you saying that it is not even possible to call it that, when it clearly is.

If the two of you ever got over that hump, you could move on to discussing the merits and demerits of using or not using the term. But at the moment reading your exchanges feels like watching the movie Groundhog Day over and over.

So, imo, all you say to AntiChris is, yes, it is possible, using this or that definition, to call it free will, but that you think it's not a good term.

 

[ruby sparks]

Lol. Very funny.

 

[ruby sparks]

Lol. Very funny.

 

[The AntiChris]

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?

What do you think the debate on free will is about?.............

So that's a "no".

It should give you pause for thought that you can find no one else who claims that 'will' "cannot logically" be described as free.

 

[The AntiChris]

If the two of you ever got over that hump, you could move on......

It's a pretty important hump. While DBT insists that the use of 'free' to describe 'will' constitutes a logical error, discussion with him about free will in any of its senses is quite pointless.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yet you yourself display little or no good will toward your opponents... but still expect to receive good will from them. You reap what you sow.



According to your definition, anything that is free from something is itself free. Free from something that is not even related to the object is not an argument for freedom. Your will may free from the influence of the Moon, but that doesn't make it 'free will'

Just out of curiosity, what is this 'free will' that you say is quite frequent in humans? Can you give one example?

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.

You are a sad man. It was just an absurd example made to highlight your absurd claim for free will, that will is free from practically the rest of the universe, or words to that effect. I know that televisions don't have will, nor do they have freedom....nor does will given that it is what it is and does what it does according to brain state and condition, not freedom.

???

I guess we're all done here.

Good work!
EB

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Everyone seems to be talking abut free will like it's some kind of measurable thing. I suppose it is if anyone would like to succinctly define it in quantifiable terms. In the end it seems to me to be yet another way to describe what humans do.

Human Behavior = Free Will.

Of course, that's not as interesting as 108 pages of discussion.

Human Behavior can be constrained and limited such as when someone is imprisoned. Every person's behavior is constrained, some more than others and in different ways. How is something so obvious an argument for something else called "free will," unless "free will" is simply recognized as differences in human behavior?

I must be interested in more mundane pursuits.