There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[Speakpigeon]

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?

I would have thought that even realising that you only believe rather than know some trivial thing, like, say, that your door keys are in your jacket's left pocket, is likely to affect your behaviour.

I guess "profoundly" was language to suggest that your very conception of reality would be affected. Sure, it would be more difficult to identify the behaviours affected because nearly any one of them could be changed or not, somewhat like a Christian becoming a sceptic about the existence of God would affect any number of their behaviours(1).
EB

Note 1 - Obviously, all this is a delusional way of talking. Our behaviours are only really affected by our brains. But since I don't know much about the brain and a lot of what's going on inside my own mind, I will stick to this kind of language, however much imperfect. It's just so practical.

 

[Treedbear]

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. ...

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.

We don't punish mentally disabled people and children for certain actions because it doesn't serve any useful purpose. In fact being tolerant of such behavior is a benefit to society. We do punish bullies and responcible adults for destructive acts because it has a negative effect on society. Positive and negative equates to some survival benefit. It's what has allowed us to survive and continue to exist. In other words it's what works. It's right and just and rational because it does make sense. When it stops making sense is when we will cease as a culture or as a species to exist. End program. You can call it cruel, or beautiful and kind and loving. Nature is all of these things depending on where you stand and how you understand it to effect you. Is there an ultimate purpose to existence? Ha!

...
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

It's been obvious to me at least that Trump's popularity during the election despite everything he said going against the moral principles that are the norm for those same groups was not the result of Trump being Trump. He's just the rogue wave that appears in an uneasy sea. I see why the Florida high school students are angry and I take it a a hopeful sign. I myself am not angry so much as incredulous and frightened. But still hopeful. I'd like to survive and begin collecting social security some day soon.

 

[DBT]

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'.

Well, give your definition of freedom and one example freedom in relation to an object that is subject to determinism.

More accurately: Will is not free from deterministic causality.

That's correct. Nor is will free in any other way shape or form....will being a construct of brain activity has no possibility of alternative action, or autonomy.

Will is fixed by brain state in any given instance in time. Which does not allow freedom of will.

 

[DBT]

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'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.
.

No it is not an assertion. Causal determinism, by very definition does not allow alternatives. You are trying to redefine determinism to allow for freedom, alternative actions to what is determined.

It does not work. You are trying to have it both ways, determined yet free, fixed yet flexible, black but white, left and right at the same time, up and down simultaneously

Consider the definition of causal determinism carefully;

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Nor, as pointed out numerous times, does random causality help build a case for free will.


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

1. Freedom requires that given an act A, the agent (will) could have acted otherwise
2. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable
3. Therefore determinism is incompatible with freedom
4. Therefore will, determined by brain state, is not free.

 

[The AntiChris]

Well, give your definition of freedom and one example freedom in relation to an object that is subject to determinism.

Assuming a an adequately deterministic universe, every single use of the word 'freedom' in the English language is in relation to an entity which is "subject to determinism".

 

[DBT]

Well, give your definition of freedom and one example freedom in relation to an object that is subject to determinism.

Assuming a an adequately deterministic universe, every single use of the word 'freedom' in the English language is in relation to an entity which is "subject to determinism".

Sorry but that doesn't establish the existence of freedom within a determined system. Nor have you defined what you mean by freedom, or what freedom entails.

 

[ruby sparks]

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

I don't even know where to start with that.

How about I just first say...

If X is true then {insert preferred supposed dreadful consequences for society here}.

In the past, X could have been 'not being at the centre of the universe', 'being evolved from apes', or 'there is no god'. Even things like votes for women, legal abortion or the contraceptive pill have caused lesser forebodings among those who assumed at the time that the status quo should be preserved, or else {insert supposed adverse consequences here}.

Second, even if the forebodings about consequences happened to be correct (which imo there is no good reason to assume) it would still be an argument from consequences and in that sense secondary to the question of whether there is free will, or not. What would we do, not let people know? Perhaps atheism should have been kept quiet, in case peeples would have done bad things and society had imploded for lack of any objective morality, as per the warnings.

Third, as I keep saying, it's already been happening and imo will probably continue to happen gradually, assuming further science confirms what appears to already be the case, and imo if that happens we will probably gradually adjust to it. And if you want to hear how a society with a dramatically reduced belief in free will might work, and how we would still have to hold people accountable for instance, you can read up on it (Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris might be half decent places to start, but there are others). There would likely be some benefits and some drawbacks. One possible benefit, which has been demonstrated in lab experiments, is an increase in compassion and a reduction in retributive tendencies (aka the human thirst for vengeance, which does not necessarily have to be part of holding people accountable). Another possible benefit is that there might be an increased focus on the causes of crime and on prevention rather than punishment.

Now personally, I only have, at best about another 30 years left. I doubt there will be radical changes in my lifetime. So I'm mainly only interested in the issue to try to understand better how I/we function, as I assume are the relevant scientists and other philosophers.

 

[The AntiChris]

Assuming a an adequately deterministic universe, every single use of the word 'freedom' in the English language is in relation to an entity which is "subject to determinism".

Sorry but that doesn't establish the existence of freedom within a determined system.

Where on earth are you getting your definition of "freedom"?

If you accept that dictionary definitions are derived from usage, then you have to accept that the dictionary definition of "freedom" is consistent with how the word is used by competent English speakers.

However, if you insist that "freedom" as defined in dictionaries does not exist, then you are denying that the dictionary definition is consistent with usage.

So I'd like to know what you think is the source of the dictionary definition of "freedom"?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, give your definition of freedom and one example freedom in relation to an object that is subject to determinism.

Assuming a an adequately deterministic universe, every single use of the word 'freedom' in the English language is in relation to an entity which is "subject to determinism".

Well, not quite!

You can assume all you want about the universe but God is not bound by your assumptions!

God is free!

William Lane Craig: How free is God? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKXqTO3wLiw

Oxford Scholarship Online, Christopher J. Insole: Is God free? http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/vi...77603.001.0001/acprof-9780199677603-chapter-3

If it's on the Internet, It must be true.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

Here's a weird thing. I don't think I have free will. And yet, if I exceed a legal speed limit while driving, I can understand that there are still good reasons why I would need to be held accountable and accept that I should get some form of penalty. You think I'd be saying, 'But it's not my fault, let me off!'. Go figure.

 

[PyramidHead]

Well, give your definition of freedom and one example freedom in relation to an object that is subject to determinism.

More accurately: Will is not free from deterministic causality.

That's correct. Nor is will free in any other way shape or form....will being a construct of brain activity has no possibility of alternative action, or autonomy.

Will is fixed by brain state in any given instance in time. Which does not allow freedom of will.

Is your will free from the influence of psychotropic drugs? How about the influence of violent threats to your person? Is it free from constraint by mechanical impediments such as handcuffs, ropes? Is it free from coercion by special interests trying to gain your favor? What about the effects of debilitating disease or injury?

 

[Emily Lake]

Here's a weird thing. I don't think I have free will. And yet, if I exceed a legal speed limit while driving, I can understand that there are still good reasons why I would need to be held accountable and accept that I should get some form of penalty. You think I'd be saying, 'But it's not my fault, let me off!'. Go figure.

Why should you be held accountable? You couldn't have driven the speed limit no matter what - it's entirely outside of your control. You had no choice in the matter, and there is no possible way that you could have done anything other than exceed the legal speed limit.

Why should you be held accountable for something over which you have absolutely zero control?

 

[ruby sparks]

Here's a weird thing. I don't think I have free will. And yet, if I exceed a legal speed limit while driving, I can understand that there are still good reasons why I would need to be held accountable and accept that I should get some form of penalty. You think I'd be saying, 'But it's not my fault, let me off!'. Go figure.

Why should you be held accountable? You couldn't have driven the speed limit no matter what - it's entirely outside of your control. You had no choice in the matter, and there is no possible way that you could have done anything other than exceed the legal speed limit.

Why should you be held accountable for something over which you have absolutely zero control?

For one thing, why shouldn't (or better still, wouldn't) I be held accountable? If I wasn't, then that, and not a lack of belief in free will, is arguably exactly what would probably have adverse consequences for the functioning of human society. It's what self-policing, decision-making, biological-machine agents with learning algorithms (or the equivalent) would be 'progammed' to do, when immersed in a competitive environment. Not entirely dissimilar, in principle at least, to many other species. Possibly because overriding almost everything else is a survival instinct, and for social species, a collection of 'fairly hard-wired' (though perhaps somewhat flexible) group survival instincts. That there would be 'group rules' would be virtually inescapable dare I say inevitable, and conforming to them would arguably be an evolutionary/survival advantage, regardless of whether anyone actually had the control they thought they had or not.

I can only again recommend you to go read more about it (if you're sufficiently motivated). The suggestion that a dramatically decreased belief in free will* (or an acceptance that we don't have it) necessarily would or does result in the dire consequences you suggest is basically a potential red herring. Losing a belief in free will might throw us a bit of a curve ball, but I reckon (putting my optimist's hat on) humans can gradually cope. That said, there may be downsides as well as upsides, and we should imo probably not instigate or recommend any dramatic social changes while the scientific understanding is still fledgling. We can, imo, already incorporate the likelihood nonetheless into our own thinking and into our personal relationships. In fact, there's arguably no honest way not to, once the realisation of the likelihood has occurred.

Compatibilism (although I think it uses the wrong term when it refers to 'free will') seems to offer one of the best, most pragmatic ways to deal with the issue socially, even if not the only one (Sam Harris is an avowed non-compatibilist afreewiller and his prognosis and that of others like him, such as Jerry Coyne et al, is very similar to that of compatibilism). Complex and sophisticated human capacities for agency, even if they are not in fact free from prior causality (determined and/or randomn) are deemed 'sufficient', in their decision-making and learning functions, to warrant allocating 'proximate' causal responsibility, albeit under a new understanding and one which would, for example, imply less need or justification for retribution, and more compassion, understanding and forgiveness, and a greater emphasis on tackling prevention and rehabilitation/cure (machines fixing broken machines) than on punishment (though there would still be penalties, possibly even severe ones if necessary), possibly, putting my optimist's hat on again, for the betterment for the world, possibly even the physical world, not just humanity (it has been said that a strong sense of our own free will may lead us to think we can manipulate and dominate nature with impunity).

That said, it is true that the belief (which likely involves illusions) is very deeply-embedded (which, along with consequences, is not something I don't consider). I personally can only find it intellectually possible to readily accept. Emotionally and instinctively, it's much harder. It's a mindfuck outcome of Socrates maxim for life, 'know thyself'. Who knows, maybe future generations will not find it so difficult to integrate into their hopefully more sophisticated and enlightened worldviews. But in any case, I don't think that possible consequences are a good reason to deny the likelihood of it actually being the case. And that's true for me regardless of the wider outcomes, which to me are a secondary issue (not least because I'll likely be dead before they develop very far). I didn't not become an atheist because of possible adverse consequences and so I can't rationally not do it for afreewillisim either, at the end of the day. Which is why, up until you raised it, I did not opine much if at all on possible wider consequences.

So if you were hoping for something less subtle, more dramatic and immediate to reignite your interest, I'm sorry to disappoint. You can repeat what you said about it having no great implications for how you live your life tomorrow or next year. Carry on as you were. I'm fairly sure you weren't about to go out and murder someone and then try to get off scot free anyway.

And as for losing interest specifically because of a ding dong about definitions. I agree.



* Perhaps especially away from the 'western'/American 'strong' version.

 

[DBT]

Well, give your definition of freedom and one example freedom in relation to an object that is subject to determinism.

More accurately: Will is not free from deterministic causality.

That's correct. Nor is will free in any other way shape or form....will being a construct of brain activity has no possibility of alternative action, or autonomy.

Will is fixed by brain state in any given instance in time. Which does not allow freedom of will.

Is your will free from the influence of psychotropic drugs? How about the influence of violent threats to your person? Is it free from constraint by mechanical impediments such as handcuffs, ropes? Is it free from coercion by special interests trying to gain your favor? What about the effects of debilitating disease or injury?

I'm not sure if that is directed at me or The AntiChris.

 

[DBT]

Assuming a an adequately deterministic universe, every single use of the word 'freedom' in the English language is in relation to an entity which is "subject to determinism".

Sorry but that doesn't establish the existence of freedom within a determined system.

Where on earth are you getting your definition of "freedom"?

If you accept that dictionary definitions are derived from usage, then you have to accept that the dictionary definition of "freedom" is consistent with how the word is used by competent English speakers.

However, if you insist that "freedom" as defined in dictionaries does not exist, then you are denying that the dictionary definition is consistent with usage.

So I'd like to know what you think is the source of the dictionary definition of "freedom"?

Hang on, this is not now about me or what I have said or argued in the past..... I asked you to give one example of freedom of will, however you want to apply the word 'free' to 'will' using any definition of 'free' and 'will' you care to offer. Are you avoiding the question?

 

[untermensche]

Well, give your definition of freedom and one example freedom in relation to an object that is subject to determinism.

More accurately: Will is not free from deterministic causality.

That's correct. Nor is will free in any other way shape or form....will being a construct of brain activity has no possibility of alternative action, or autonomy.

Will is fixed by brain state in any given instance in time. Which does not allow freedom of will.

Is your will free from the influence of psychotropic drugs? How about the influence of violent threats to your person? Is it free from constraint by mechanical impediments such as handcuffs, ropes? Is it free from coercion by special interests trying to gain your favor? What about the effects of debilitating disease or injury?

The idea of freedom of the will is that under some circumstances the will can choose freely. Thus we have human civilization and discuss these matters freely and are not living like wild apes.

A person doesn't just invent something. They first have ideas and then direct their thinking towards a goal.

This idea from minds that the mind does not exist as a separate entity does not conform with observation.

 

[DBT]

Will doesn't choose. It is the brain that acquires and processes information and makes a selection from a set of realizable options based on a given set of criteria, wants, needs, fears, hopes, desires, which are based on past experience, weighing of cost to benefit....or simply emotion taking over, a snap decision, sometimes leading to regret.

 

[The AntiChris]

Where on earth are you getting your definition of "freedom"?

If you accept that dictionary definitions are derived from usage, then you have to accept that the dictionary definition of "freedom" is consistent with how the word is used by competent English speakers.

However, if you insist that "freedom" as defined in dictionaries does not exist, then you are denying that the dictionary definition is consistent with usage.

So I'd like to know what you think is the source of the dictionary definition of "freedom"?

Hang on, this is not now about me or what I have said or argued in the past..... I asked you to give one example of freedom of will, however you want to apply the word 'free' to 'will' using any definition of 'free' and 'will' you care to offer. Are you avoiding the question?

No you didn't:

Well, give your definition of freedom and one example freedom in relation to an object that is subject to determinism.

Your original claim was:

Causal determinism does not allow freedom.

If this were true then every single positive claim of freedom in our universe would be mistaken. This would be absurd.

 

[DBT]

No you didn't:

My question was and is and always will be related to the issue of freedom with a determined system. The wording between quotes is different, but the question is the same, it is the same issue....the subject of this thread being 'will' - that would be the obvious choice of objects to use. But it doesn't matter, any example of freedom within a determined system will do as a beginning. Including, of course, your definition of 'free' or 'freedom'

If freedom, depending on your definition, is possible within a determined system, this presumably can be applied to any object that has freedom, be it will or something else.

Again, one example of freedom within a determined system with definitions will do for a start.

If this were true then every single positive claim of freedom in our universe would be mistaken. This would be absurd.

No, it would relate to appearance, ''the sun is setting'' ''the moon is rising,'' the dog is free of its chain, etc, which says nothing about the ultimate state of the system, only appearance.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, give your definition of freedom and one example freedom in relation to an object that is subject to determinism.

More accurately: Will is not free from deterministic causality.

That's correct. Nor is will free in any other way shape or form....will being a construct of brain activity has no possibility of alternative action, or autonomy.

Will is fixed by brain state in any given instance in time. Which does not allow freedom of will.

Is your will free from the influence of psychotropic drugs? How about the influence of violent threats to your person? Is it free from constraint by mechanical impediments such as handcuffs, ropes? Is it free from coercion by special interests trying to gain your favor? What about the effects of debilitating disease or injury?

Yeah, sure, but his will is not free from semantic prejudices. There's really nothing much you could do about that.

He knows all the arguments. I guess he must feel so much better just sticking to his guns.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

No you didn't:

Well, give your definition of freedom and one example freedom in relation to an object that is subject to determinism.

Your original claim was:

Causal determinism does not allow freedom.

If this were true then every single positive claim of freedom in our universe would be mistaken. This would be absurd.

We're not even free to say we're free.
EB