There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[ruby sparks]

It's a bit of a strawman.

In what way is it a bit of a strawman?

No offense, but lately you're starting to sound like speakpigeon, whose position might be described as (a) sane, (b) pragmatic, (c) not all that interested in the detailed analysis or implications, (d) happy to accept that we have free will, whatever it is, because it feels like it, and/or (e) sane and pragmatic (I just thought I'd reiterate those ones in case either of you think I'm being harsh).

I mean, if Marcus du Sautoy and whatisname-Dylan Haynes who were in that video were here now, would you just say to them, "that seems like a bit of a strawman"?

 

[Speakpigeon]

No offense, but lately you're starting to sound like speakpigeon, whose position might be described as (a) sane, (b) pragmatic, (c) not all that interested in the detailed analysis or implications, (d) happy to accept that we have free will because it feels like it and/or (e) sane and pragmatic (I just thought I'd reiterate those ones in case either of you think I'm being harsh).

The expression "free will" is an ordinary item of the English language and it's reference is something in our mental life we all have and all experience from our own subjective perspective. As such, there isn't much to go by in terms of "analysis or implications", just as we don't have much to say about most items in the menagerie of our mental life, things like pain, colour, nostalgia, hunger, anger etc.

Free will and all these things are given, and they are taken for granted by most people. At the notable exception of the ideologues on all side.

And, true, scientists who try to understand how our free will is produced by the brain. Good luck to them.

Me, I'm happy to belong to the category of "most people" here.

You know, those who decide what words mean and how they are used. Just because "most people" are in the millions and ideologues are just a handful. And they also disagree all the time with each other, mostly.
EB

 

[Emily Lake]

It's a bit of a strawman.

In what way is it a bit of a strawman?

You seemed to be saying that because their study suggested that there is other non-conscious stuff going on... there is no will. That seems a bit of a strawman to me - nobody has claimed that there isn't other non-conscious things happening as well.

No offense, but lately you're starting to sound like speakpigeon, whose position might be described as (a) sane, (b) pragmatic, (c) not all that interested in the detailed analysis or implications, (d) happy to accept that we have free will, whatever it is, because it feels like it, and/or (e) sane and pragmatic (I just thought I'd reiterate those ones in case either of you think I'm being harsh).

I don't think you're being harsh

Sane & pragmatic I'm all for. Like I said earlier, there's a point where it gets so bogged down in presumed implications and details that I simply can't keep up... but also where it no longer has any utility or parsimony. Once we get into the tiniest details (like arguing about the difference between agency, will, and free will) we've truly hit a point where 1) this is not a simpler framework and 2) the framework has no practical value or meaning to anyone outside of a very small group of specialists.

The implications are... none. We're not going to change how we behave as a species. We're not going to stop trying to change other people's minds or alter their behavior. Our societies are certainly not going to alleviate us of responsibility for the consequences of our actions, we're not going to throw the term 'negligence' out the window. We're not going to change our social structure, our language, and our behavior as a species to somehow reflect that will and choice are grand illusions (presuming that is correct). There's nothing to be gained. We feel that we have bounded free will, we act as if we do, we act as if other people do, our entire species interacts on the assumption that we have will, and all human social structures to date are dependent on that implicit assumption.

So at the end of the day... it really does end up hitting a wall where it simply doesn't matter all that much. Very similar to how it's technically true that none of us can prove that other people exist independently of our own minds... but it doesn't matter at all. It has no impact, no utility, and no parsimony because every single aspect of our waking lives is predicated on the assumption that reality exists externally to our selves.

I mean, if Marcus du Sautoy and whatisname-Dylan Haynes who were in that video were here now, would you just say to them, "that seems like a bit of a strawman"?

Very possibly. At a minimum I'd ask them a lot of questions.

 

[ruby sparks]

You seemed to be saying that because their study suggested that there is other non-conscious stuff going on... there is no will.

No I was ok with moving an arm being will.

- - - Updated - - -

The implications are... none. We're not going to change how we behave as a species.

We already are. We're arguably in the midst of a gradual process of a weakening of beliefs about free will that has been going on for decades if not centuries. Legal chins are being rubbed. Creeping partial leniency and compassion has begun. There once was a time, apparently, when we put pigs and horses on trial and handed down death sentences to them, and routinely executed mentally ill people. Personally, I myself would not say there are no implications and/or that we are not going to change, especially not if science continues to undermine our apparently often-cherished notions.

Seriously, get on board now, is my advice. Later, you can say you were ahead of the pack, which is always a cool thing to toss into the conversation.

 

[Emily Lake]

You seemed to be saying that because their study suggested that there is other non-conscious stuff going on... there is no will.

No I was ok with moving an arm being will.

- - - Updated - - -

The implications are... none. We're not going to change how we behave as a species.

We already are. We're arguably in the midst of a gradual process of a weakening of beliefs about free will that has been going on for decades if not centuries. Legal chins are being rubbed. Creeping partial leniency and compassion has begun. There once was a time, apparently, when we put pigs and horses on trial and handed down death sentences to them, and routinely executed mentally ill people. Personally, I myself would not say there are no implications and/or that we are not going to change, especially not if science continues to undermine our apparently often-cherished notions.

Seriously, get on board now, is my advice. Later, you can say you were ahead of the pack, which is always a cool thing to toss into the conversation.

Yeah... when the "pack" seems to be gong down a road of no accountability, no responsibility, and everyone can just do whatever they want with no consideration for the impact on other people and it's acceptable because "that's what they were always going to do anyway", I'm happy to be an outlier.

Some genuine consideration for things outside the capacity of a mentally ill person is fine. But backing off from punishing and censoring the serial rapist or the pedophile or the spouse-abuser or the child-molester because they just can't help themselves isn't something I'm okay with.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The implications are... none. We're not going to change how we behave as a species.

We already are. We're arguably in the midst of a gradual process of a weakening of beliefs about free will that has been going on for decades if not centuries. Legal chins are being rubbed. Creeping partial leniency and compassion has begun. There once was a time, apparently, when we put pigs and horses on trial and handed down death sentences to them, and routinely executed mentally ill people.

If we dismiss free will there's really no point talking as if we had it. We're not really doing anything at all. Quarks or strings or whatever are doing it.

Even worse, our views about quarks and strings are just plain irrelevant. There must be something that's doing all the doing but we don't know what it is, and it's just not us because we don't even exist as such, at all.

Or worse, our views about something doing it is utterly irrelevant. Whatever we say is irrelevant. Even that.

And then there's no meaningful difference at all between having a successful career in engineering, politics, the health care system or even science, and staring all day long at a blank wall thinking about nothing.

Not exactly good.
EB

 

[DBT]

On the topic of will...

One can imagine their arm moving, and move their arm. One can also imagine their arm moving, visualize it and all of the attendant sensations... and can NOT move their arm. Wouldn't that be a fairly clear application of will?

This whole experience is being produced by brain activity, not conscious Will as a Director, not autonomous 'self'

Conscious Brain Activity = Will

Conscious activity entails far more than will, sensory experience, feelings, emotions, etc. It is brain activity that shapes, forms and generates conscious activity, including will....again, will is no more and no less than what the brain is doing according to its condition and architecture.

I've been following, and I still don't follow your reasoning here. Especially since you've already repeatedly acknowledged that will exists within the auspices of brain function - it's a thing. And you've acknowledged that decision-making is a legitimate and real brain function. You just object to "free" will... on a really narrow definition of "free" that nobody but you has intended.

And now you're stepping back from even acknowledging will?

FFS, just go ahead and say "this whole experience is being produced by cells, not by brain activity as a director or an autonomous unit".

I'm starting to think that you don't want to follow it, after all, it is simple and straightforward... including numerous quotes and references that express the same argument.

It can be boiled down to - brain state and activity equals output at any given instance in time.
This is a deterministic process (any random quantum interference is not chosen)
Will is causally determined.
Causal determinism does not allow freedom.
Will is not free.

Why is this hard to grasp?

 

[Speakpigeon]

So at the end of the day... it really does end up hitting a wall where it simply doesn't matter all that much. Very similar to how it's technically true that none of us can prove that other people exist independently of our own minds... but it doesn't matter at all. It has no impact, no utility, and no parsimony because every single aspect of our waking lives is predicated on the assumption that reality exists externally to our selves.

Not the same thing at all.

Realising we can only believe there's a world out there rather than actually know there is one does affect us profoundly. And this conception does not remove the value of knowing things. Knowing remains knowing. And it couldn't remove the value of believing in a material world because that would be tantamount to knowing the material world has no value, which would be knowing something about it, and we don't.

Knowledge is knowledge and beliefs are beliefs. Just make sure you're not confused as to which is which. Can't be bad.

And you get to keep all your essential beliefs in a material world. In effect, you couldn't loose them. No way.

So, relax, and enjoy the show as much as you can.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

Yeah... when the "pack" seems to be gong down a road of no accountability, no responsibility, and everyone can just do whatever they want with no consideration for the impact on other people and it's acceptable because "that's what they were always going to do anyway", I'm happy to be an outlier.

Some genuine consideration for things outside the capacity of a mentally ill person is fine. But backing off from punishing and censoring the serial rapist or the pedophile or the spouse-abuser or the child-molester because they just can't help themselves isn't something I'm okay with.

What you're happy to be, apparently, is someone who hasn't got a clue what they're talking about. Where you got this idea that either compatibilism or afreewillism would mean any of the above, I don't know, but I am going to say this: lately your posts on this topic have for some reason been going steadily down Rational Hill, to the point now of dumb (as in uninformed) knee jerk reactions like the above.


ETA: ok that almost certainly was too harsh this time. But I think maybe you're just bored of the topic, basically.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And I definitely know I'm moving my arm at will.

I'm less certain as to the physical underpinning of that.

At best, I can only believe there's even any, to begin with.
EB

 

[The AntiChris]

Causal determinism does not allow freedom.

I see you're still making sweeping generalities which simply are not true. Our (adequately) deterministic universe is full of 'freedoms'.

Will is not free.

More accurately: Will is not free from deterministic causality.

 

[untermensche]

And I definitely know I'm moving my arm at will.

I'm less certain as to the physical underpinning of that.

At best, I can only believe there's even any, to begin with.
EB

There is no rational uncertainty.

Every human knows where they came from. A younger human.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sometimes, I don't feel that human, if you wanted to know.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Sometimes, I don't feel that human, if you wanted to know.
EB

I assure you everything you feel is because you are a human.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sometimes, I don't feel that human, if you wanted to know.
EB

I assure you everything you feel is because you are a human.

This would be reassuring, I suppose.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

...

The implications are... none. We're not going to change how we behave as a species.

We already are. We're arguably in the midst of a gradual process of a weakening of beliefs about free will that has been going on for decades if not centuries. Legal chins are being rubbed. Creeping partial leniency and compassion has begun. There once was a time, apparently, when we put pigs and horses on trial and handed down death sentences to them, and routinely executed mentally ill people. Personally, I myself would not say there are no implications and/or that we are not going to change, especially not if science continues to undermine our apparently often-cherished notions.

Seriously, get on board now, is my advice. Later, you can say you were ahead of the pack, which is always a cool thing to toss into the conversation.

Which only goes to show that there's a difference between the lack of free will vis-a-vis a deterministic existence and the public interpretation of what that means. It's incorrect to think that we can completely do away with laws (as well as leniecy and compassion properly applied) and the result will be the same. Determinism is based on cause and effect. You can't disassociate yourself from events and expect it will be the same as if you were actively involved. If you worry about society's reaction to a loss of purpose then they have to learn to deal with that. Purpose is existence and survival. We need to realize that and then things will get much better.

 

[fromderinside]

.... and when I know I am floating .... especially when there is no obvious physical underpinning of that. When does knowing become belief and belief fantasy? Pretty sure you are justifying why your arm is moving.

 

[Emily Lake]

Conscious Brain Activity = Will

Conscious activity entails far more than will, sensory experience, feelings, emotions, etc. It is brain activity that shapes, forms and generates conscious activity, including will....again, will is no more and no less than what the brain is doing according to its condition and architecture.

I've been following, and I still don't follow your reasoning here. Especially since you've already repeatedly acknowledged that will exists within the auspices of brain function - it's a thing. And you've acknowledged that decision-making is a legitimate and real brain function. You just object to "free" will... on a really narrow definition of "free" that nobody but you has intended.

And now you're stepping back from even acknowledging will?

FFS, just go ahead and say "this whole experience is being produced by cells, not by brain activity as a director or an autonomous unit".

I'm starting to think that you don't want to follow it, after all, it is simple and straightforward... including numerous quotes and references that express the same argument.

It can be boiled down to - brain state and activity equals output at any given instance in time.
This is a deterministic process (any random quantum interference is not chosen)
Will is causally determined.
Causal determinism does not allow freedom.
Will is not free.

Why is this hard to grasp?

It's hard to grasp because the bolded assertion is just that - an assertion.

And once again, I'll point you back to the exact same argument you've been having since the beginning: If you claim that causal determinism does not allow for freedom, then that would necessarily imply that freedom does not exist in any fashion. Yet you yourself have allowed that freedom exists in other contexts. In the case of will you say there is no freedom, and in other causally determined cases you say there is freedom - even when you are using the exact same definition of freedom! So you're either contradicting yourself, or you're engaging in special pleading, or you're failing to clearly express the distinction that you believe exists.

By the way - saying the same thing over and over, with almost no variation, isn't making it any clearer. And saying "I've already explained this" also doesn't make it any clearer. If you're being unclear, try a different approach.

 

[Emily Lake]

So at the end of the day... it really does end up hitting a wall where it simply doesn't matter all that much. Very similar to how it's technically true that none of us can prove that other people exist independently of our own minds... but it doesn't matter at all. It has no impact, no utility, and no parsimony because every single aspect of our waking lives is predicated on the assumption that reality exists externally to our selves.

Not the same thing at all.

Realising we can only believe there's a world out there rather than actually know there is one does affect us profoundly. And this conception does not remove the value of knowing things. Knowing remains knowing. And it couldn't remove the value of believing in a material world because that would be tantamount to knowing the material world has no value, which would be knowing something about it, and we don't.

Knowledge is knowledge and beliefs are beliefs. Just make sure you're not confused as to which is which. Can't be bad.

And you get to keep all your essential beliefs in a material world. In effect, you couldn't loose them. No way.

So, relax, and enjoy the show as much as you can.
EB

How does it profoundly affect us? You proceed to elaborate and say that it doesn't change the value of knowledge, nor does it change the value of belief. And since it also doesn't change behavior... I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how you think that "realizing" we can only "believe" in reality has a profound effect?

 

[Emily Lake]

Yeah... when the "pack" seems to be gong down a road of no accountability, no responsibility, and everyone can just do whatever they want with no consideration for the impact on other people and it's acceptable because "that's what they were always going to do anyway", I'm happy to be an outlier.

Some genuine consideration for things outside the capacity of a mentally ill person is fine. But backing off from punishing and censoring the serial rapist or the pedophile or the spouse-abuser or the child-molester because they just can't help themselves isn't something I'm okay with.

What you're happy to be, apparently, is someone who hasn't got a clue what they're talking about. Where you got this idea that either compatibilism or afreewillism would mean any of the above, I don't know, but I am going to say this: lately your posts on this topic have for some reason been going steadily down Rational Hill, to the point now of dumb (as in uninformed) knee jerk reactions like the above.

Let's take as given that there is no free agency, and that every behavior, thought, belief, and action is determined by the state of prior events. That literally means that every future action and movement and state of every particle larger than a quark is PRE-determined - it depends directly on the current state of everything, with no uncertainty. If we were capable of knowing everything about the state of now, we would be able to perfectly predict the state of tomorrow.

Now... if that's the given... what does that mean? Currently, we accept that a mentally disabled person isn't responsible for their actions, because they lack the capacity to know right from wrong. A child isn't responsible for the outcomes of their decisions because they lack the rational thought necessary to be able to reasonably project those outcomes. If we fully embrace the idea that there is no freedom... then that means that each person can only do what they did - they had no choice, there was no alternative available to them. So a child that bullies another child was unable to do otherwise - they had no capacity to choose not to bully another child. Similarly, it means that an adult who accosts and beats another adult isn't responsible for her actions either - she could not possibly have done otherwise, because she has no capacity to choose her own actions. Those actions were perfectly determined, and could only have occurred as they did. If the actor has no ability to choose their behavior, then it would be irrational to hold them responsible for their actions. It would make no sense, and would be cruel to act as if they were accountable for their decisions, because we've accepted as reality that they have no ability to make a decision at all.

If that's true... then why would it be any different for rape or murder or abuse? Logically, it's no different. Those actors - those rapists, murderers, and abusers - had no choice int he matter. They were incapable of doing anything other than raping, abusing and murdering. They are not accountable for their actions.

That's the logical and rational outcome of the premise that there is no will and that all behavior, action, and thought is deterministic. You might find it a distasteful outcome... but that IS the outcome. If you accept that there is no will and that all actions are determined, then you must also accept that rapists aren't responsible for their rapes, that murderers aren't accountable for their murders, and that child abusers are incapable of not having abused their child.

You call it a knee-jerk reaction. I challenge you to explain how that is NOT the outcome of your premise.

ETA: ok that almost certainly was too harsh this time. But I think maybe you're just bored of the topic, basically.

Meh. My feelings aren't hurt for the nonce. And yes, to a degree, I'm tired of the topic. In particular, I'm tired of the back and forth over minute and meaningless differences in definitions inconsistently applied... and I'm tired of the insistence that it's all deterministic while willfully ignoring the consequences of that belief, and while disregarding the extremity to which the concept of will is embedded in every single thing you (and every human and a fair number of other species) do throughout your life.

Also... Just to chew on... if everything is perfectly deterministic... then Trump was inevitable and nobody else could possibly have won, and every stupid thing the government is doing right now is the only possible thing that it could be doing... so there's no rational reason to be angry about it