What is free will?

[Marvin Edwards]

Hopefully, we all acknowledge that software can make choices.

Absolutely. However, the software, and the computer it runs on, has no interest in the outcomes of those choices. Only the programmer and the end-user have an interest in the consequences of those decisions. That's what distinguishes us from the machines.

...
Let us imagine two pieces of software:

• One makes choices but does not have free will
• The other makes choices and has free will

In order to have free will, the machine would first have to have a will of its own. That's why machines are never said to have free will.
(Usually, when our machines behave as if they had a will of their own, we get really upset, and call the technician or the programmer.)

How would you go about distinguishing between the two? How would you tell the difference between the software that makes choices and has free will from the software that makes choices and does not have free will?

I think I've just answered that for you. There must be a personal interest in the outcome of the choice, some vested interest in the consequences.

We could theoretically program such an interest into a robot, but we would have to be very careful to avoid giving it actual free will, lest it gets pissed and comes after us. (That's why Asimov invented the Three Laws of Robotics).

 

[Marvin Edwards]

...

To answer the question in the title, "What is Free Will?", free will is a deterministic event in which a person decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.

 

[DBT]

That being the compatibilist definition of free will.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

That being the compatibilist definition of free will.

It would also be the pragmatic and the empirical definition of free will.

The pragmatist looks for the meaning of our words in their actual usage in practical matters. For example, what does "free will" mean in the sentence: "I participated in Libet's experiment of my own free will". It simply means I was not coerced or unduly influenced into participating in the experiment.

The empiricist looks for objective evidence of things. For example, events are things that actually happen. When free will is viewed as an event in which a person decides for themselves what they will do, we can actually observe these events taking place in the real world. We can walk into any restaurant and observe countless events of people reading the menu and deciding for themselves what they will have for lunch.

Both the pragmatist and the empiricist would find problems with any other definitions of free will, other than a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.

 

[Jarhyn]

There seems in some ways to be in some ways disagreement over this so I think it's important to define some things a little more tightly.

Now, this is going to look at neural algos AS IF they were more a little more straightford so as to simplify them, given some people wish to say "neurons can't do that".

Sorry guys, neurons can do anything a "flat algorithm" can do PLUS "respond to requests for change"

First off, there is a thing, a state encoding needs/wants/desires at various levels.

At any of these stages there is an availability for the "process service" in question to be told "that didn't work, try again" or even "that did not work, GIT GUD!"

There is an algorithm that orders this list based on "priority". What one is left with is an ordered set.

From this ordered set, either main priorities are already selected by being at the top of the list or a second review stage happens to identify miss-sorts and either identify "deal breakers" or "absolute necessities".

From this set, ONE is going to be "current priority".

Either concurrently, or after selection (unimportant which, just depends on how many threads you run, and what the initial priority value was) there will be a series of acts assembled in some way which are known to deterministically produce results: a solution or set of solutions is developed to the priority.

Regardless of whether the solution is a singleton or a set (or perhaps a callback for continued solving), this solution is then assigned as a "will".

Now this is where Marvin and I Disagree: I do not declare it to be "deciding for oneself" in any necessary regard.

There is a difference between a "free will" and a "freely held will".

After all, the dwarf did not will to fight of their own volition: it was as others point out "subconscious".

I might note that "subconscious" actions still warrant disapproval and remediation: when one local entity is the causal nexus for a number of bloody murders, the bloody murders will stop when you remove the murderer.

This means that regardless of "causal necessity", "we at least have to try, damn it".

A free will is a will that is "free to goal": the guy wills to walk through the door; is the door locked?

Conversely "freely held will" is a will that was accepted by a choice function fundamental to the agency itself, to which the agent can direct disapproval/change/arbitrary selection.

I might note that "free will" gets us punishment, exile, execution. It does not get us "corrections".

What FDI and DBT both seem to be arguing (also badly) against as regards will seems to be "freely held will".

The thing is, there's nothing preventing the thing sorting to the top of priorities and so the current "will of the moment" from being "evaluate will". This may even be an interrupting process!

This itself can mean rejection and reselection of the will.

Now, I know I don't have a whole lot to do in here. Mostly I'm just here for review: review states or responses, direct their shape at the discernment engine, see what that spits out, see if I can categorize the response and then produce an appropriate adjustment to the request or "backpropagate" against the misbehaving system.

Mostly it's a lot of sorting, connecting, and switching.

Finally, there is another element of this which is to say "conscious review", which is neither "freely held will" nor "free will".

Conscious review means that occasionally, an interrupt on the normal process happens, "current will" is cached, and the present driving need is replaced with "review will", which involves a potential reselection of will on the basis of several factors, one often being the feasibility of the process, among other factors.

In many ways this means that the original will was not free: it is constrained in fact by the very thing that put it there. It was freely held will, but not free will!

 

[steve_bank]

Free Will is whatever you freely will it to be. No pun intended.

Like theists discussing god, free will is debated without really defining it.

If you say 'I define free will as .a,b,c...' then debate can follow.

 

[Jarhyn]

Free Will is whatever you freely will it to be. No pun intended.

Like theists discussing god, free will is debated without really defining it.

If you say 'I define free will as .a,b,c...' then debate can follow.

Well, issue comes in when statements are made such as "there is no such thing as free will, therefore as all actions are necessary, there is no such thing as responsibility!"

I expect that there may be a strong, well-definable concept of "free will" available buried somewhere at the heart of "common usage" which approaches concepts in game theory and math.

However one defines it, it must be capable of operating in a deterministic system, and of assigning responsibility to operation of choice.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Free Will is whatever you freely will it to be. No pun intended.

Like theists discussing god, free will is debated without really defining it.

If you say 'I define free will as .a,b,c...' then debate can follow.

Well, issue comes in when statements are made such as "there is no such thing as free will, therefore as all actions are necessary, there is no such thing as responsibility!"

I expect that there may be a strong, well-definable concept of "free will" available buried somewhere at the heart of "common usage" which approaches concepts in game theory and math.

However one defines it, it must be capable of operating in a deterministic system, and of assigning responsibility to operation of choice.

It is like one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices said about pornography, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it".

"Free will" is when someone decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. It is literally a freely chosen "I will".

I define the elements on my website like this:

What’s Free Will About?

In 2013, the Tsarnaev brothers set off home-made explosives at the Boston Marathon, killing several people and injuring many others. They planned to set off the rest of their devices in New York city. To do this, they hijacked a car, driven by a college student, and forced him at gunpoint to assist their escape from Boston to New York.

On the way, they stopped for gas. While one of the brothers was inside the store and the other was distracted by the GPS, the student bounded from the car and ran across the road to another service station. There he called the police and described his vehicle. The police chased the bombers, capturing one and killing the other.

Although the student initially gave assistance to the bombers, he was not charged with “aiding and abetting”, because he was not acting of his own free will. He was forced, at gunpoint, to assist in their escape. The surviving bomber was held responsible for his actions, because he had acted deliberately, of his own free will.

A person’s will is their specific intent for the immediate or distant future. A person usually chooses what they will do. The choice sets their intent, and their intent motivates and directs their subsequent actions.

Free will is when this choice is made free of coercion and undue influence. The student’s decision to assist the bombers’ escape was coerced. It was not freely chosen.

Coercion can be a literal “gun to the head”, or any other threat of harm sufficient to compel one person to subordinate their will to the will of another.

Undue influence is any extraordinary condition that effectively removes a person’s control of their choice. Certain mental illnesses can distort a person’s perception of reality by hallucinations or delusions. Other brain impairments can directly damage the ability to reason. Yet another form may subject them to an irresistible compulsion. Hypnosis would be an undue influence. Authoritative command, as exercised by a parent over a child, an officer over a soldier, or a doctor over a patient, is another. Any of these special circumstances may remove a person’s control over their choices.

Why Do We Care About Free Will?

Responsibility for the benefit or harm of an action is assigned to the most meaningful and relevant causes. A cause is meaningful if it efficiently explains why an event happened. A cause is relevant if we can do something about it.

The means of correction is determined by the nature of the cause: (a) If the person is forced at gunpoint to commit a crime, then all that is needed to correct his or her behavior is to remove that threat. (b) If a person’s choice is unduly influenced by mental illness, then correction will require psychiatric treatment. (c) If a person is of sound mind and deliberately chooses to commit the act for their own profit, then correction requires changing how they think about such choices in the future.

In all these cases, society’s interest is to prevent future harm. And it is the harm that justifies taking appropriate action. Until the offender’s behavior is corrected, society protects itself from further injury by securing the offender, usually in a prison or mental institution, as appropriate.

So, the role of free will, in questions of moral and legal responsibility, is to distinguish between deliberate acts versus acts caused by coercion or undue influence. This distinction guides our approach to correction and prevention.

Free will makes the empirical distinction between a person autonomously choosing for themselves versus a choice imposed upon them by someone or something else.

 

[DBT]

That being the compatibilist definition of free will.

It would also be the pragmatic and the empirical definition of free will.

The pragmatist looks for the meaning of our words in their actual usage in practical matters. For example, what does "free will" mean in the sentence: "I participated in Libet's experiment of my own free will". It simply means I was not coerced or unduly influenced into participating in the experiment.

The empiricist looks for objective evidence of things. For example, events are things that actually happen. When free will is viewed as an event in which a person decides for themselves what they will do, we can actually observe these events taking place in the real world. We can walk into any restaurant and observe countless events of people reading the menu and deciding for themselves what they will have for lunch.

Both the pragmatist and the empiricist would find problems with any other definitions of free will, other than a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.

Empirical? That would have to include agency. Our will, be it conscious or unconscious is not the means by which decisions are made or actions taken, it's a matter of form and function, not Will. Not taking the nature of agency into account compromises the compatibilist premises and definition.

 

[DBT]

Free Will is whatever you freely will it to be. No pun intended.

Like theists discussing god, free will is debated without really defining it.

If you say 'I define free will as .a,b,c...' then debate can follow.

Well, issue comes in when statements are made such as "there is no such thing as free will, therefore as all actions are necessary, there is no such thing as responsibility!"

I expect that there may be a strong, well-definable concept of "free will" available buried somewhere at the heart of "common usage" which approaches concepts in game theory and math.

However one defines it, it must be capable of operating in a deterministic system, and of assigning responsibility to operation of choice.

It is like one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices said about pornography, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it".

"Free will" is when someone decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. It is literally a freely chosen "I will".

I define the elements on my website like this:

What’s Free Will About?

In 2013, the Tsarnaev brothers set off home-made explosives at the Boston Marathon, killing several people and injuring many others. They planned to set off the rest of their devices in New York city. To do this, they hijacked a car, driven by a college student, and forced him at gunpoint to assist their escape from Boston to New York.

On the way, they stopped for gas. While one of the brothers was inside the store and the other was distracted by the GPS, the student bounded from the car and ran across the road to another service station. There he called the police and described his vehicle. The police chased the bombers, capturing one and killing the other.

Although the student initially gave assistance to the bombers, he was not charged with “aiding and abetting”, because he was not acting of his own free will. He was forced, at gunpoint, to assist in their escape. The surviving bomber was held responsible for his actions, because he had acted deliberately, of his own free will.

A person’s will is their specific intent for the immediate or distant future. A person usually chooses what they will do. The choice sets their intent, and their intent motivates and directs their subsequent actions.

Free will is when this choice is made free of coercion and undue influence. The student’s decision to assist the bombers’ escape was coerced. It was not freely chosen.

Coercion can be a literal “gun to the head”, or any other threat of harm sufficient to compel one person to subordinate their will to the will of another.

Undue influence is any extraordinary condition that effectively removes a person’s control of their choice. Certain mental illnesses can distort a person’s perception of reality by hallucinations or delusions. Other brain impairments can directly damage the ability to reason. Yet another form may subject them to an irresistible compulsion. Hypnosis would be an undue influence. Authoritative command, as exercised by a parent over a child, an officer over a soldier, or a doctor over a patient, is another. Any of these special circumstances may remove a person’s control over their choices.

Why Do We Care About Free Will?

Responsibility for the benefit or harm of an action is assigned to the most meaningful and relevant causes. A cause is meaningful if it efficiently explains why an event happened. A cause is relevant if we can do something about it.

The means of correction is determined by the nature of the cause: (a) If the person is forced at gunpoint to commit a crime, then all that is needed to correct his or her behavior is to remove that threat. (b) If a person’s choice is unduly influenced by mental illness, then correction will require psychiatric treatment. (c) If a person is of sound mind and deliberately chooses to commit the act for their own profit, then correction requires changing how they think about such choices in the future.

In all these cases, society’s interest is to prevent future harm. And it is the harm that justifies taking appropriate action. Until the offender’s behavior is corrected, society protects itself from further injury by securing the offender, usually in a prison or mental institution, as appropriate.

So, the role of free will, in questions of moral and legal responsibility, is to distinguish between deliberate acts versus acts caused by coercion or undue influence. This distinction guides our approach to correction and prevention.

Free will makes the empirical distinction between a person autonomously choosing for themselves versus a choice imposed upon them by someone or something else.

All animals are autonomous. All animals think and act according to their makeup, their behaviour, thought and response being determined by it. Nobody chooses their inherent condition, yet it is inherent condition that determines how they think, what they think and do.

Free will plays no part, nor does it tell us a thing about a person, who they are, what they think or do.

The article talks about an ideology.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

That being the compatibilist definition of free will.

It would also be the pragmatic and the empirical definition of free will.

The pragmatist looks for the meaning of our words in their actual usage in practical matters. For example, what does "free will" mean in the sentence: "I participated in Libet's experiment of my own free will". It simply means I was not coerced or unduly influenced into participating in the experiment.

The empiricist looks for objective evidence of things. For example, events are things that actually happen. When free will is viewed as an event in which a person decides for themselves what they will do, we can actually observe these events taking place in the real world. We can walk into any restaurant and observe countless events of people reading the menu and deciding for themselves what they will have for lunch.

Both the pragmatist and the empiricist would find problems with any other definitions of free will, other than a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.

Empirical? That would have to include agency. Our will, be it conscious or unconscious is not the means by which decisions are made or actions taken, it's a matter of form and function, not Will. Not taking the nature of agency into account compromises the compatibilist premises and definition.

Empirically, in the restaurant, the customer is the agent placing the order with the waiter. The customer sets in motion the series of events that result in his getting a meal and the bill.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "agent" as "1. a. A person who or thing which acts upon someone or something; one who or that which exerts power; the doer of an action."

So the first agent is the customer, the customer is the source of the order. The waiter is the agent that carries the order to the chef and brings back the dinner and the bill to the customer. The chef is the agent that prepares the meal.

But, from our prior conversations, I know that you want to get into the neuroscience details. Within the customer, the agency that reads the menu and makes the choice is the brain. The brain is a collection of neurological functions, that are located in specific areas. Neuroscience has plotted the locations of many functions within the neural architecture. They do this by observing behavioral changes in people who have injuries to specific areas of the brain (and also by surgical experimentation on various animal species).

The brain is constantly processing information and deciding what the person will do under different circumstances. In the restaurant, the customer must reduce the many options on the menu to a single dinner order, that is, he must "choose" what he will have for dinner.

Choosing is a process that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice. The choice is usually in the form of an "I will", as in "I will have the Chef Salad for dinner". The "I will" expresses the chosen intent. The chosen intent motivates and directs the body's actions as it carries out that intent, for example, by telling the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please."

Recent neuroscience has pointed out that much of the brain's decision making process takes place beneath conscious awareness, with awareness often showing up after the decision is made. However, this does not change the fact that it is the brain that is the agent performing decision making on behalf of the person. And, since it is the person's own brain, it is the person's own decision.

So, the neuroscience of agency is that a person's brain is deciding what the person will do.

There appears to be no problem with agency in the empiricist view. All sciences, including neuroscience, consider things from the empirical viewpoint. Neuroscience uses tools to observe the behavior of the brain as it relates to the behavior of the person. Both are empirical phenomena.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Free Will is whatever you freely will it to be. No pun intended.

Like theists discussing god, free will is debated without really defining it.

If you say 'I define free will as .a,b,c...' then debate can follow.

Well, issue comes in when statements are made such as "there is no such thing as free will, therefore as all actions are necessary, there is no such thing as responsibility!"

I expect that there may be a strong, well-definable concept of "free will" available buried somewhere at the heart of "common usage" which approaches concepts in game theory and math.

However one defines it, it must be capable of operating in a deterministic system, and of assigning responsibility to operation of choice.

It is like one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices said about pornography, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it".

"Free will" is when someone decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. It is literally a freely chosen "I will".

I define the elements on my website like this:

What’s Free Will About?

In 2013, the Tsarnaev brothers set off home-made explosives at the Boston Marathon, killing several people and injuring many others. They planned to set off the rest of their devices in New York city. To do this, they hijacked a car, driven by a college student, and forced him at gunpoint to assist their escape from Boston to New York.

On the way, they stopped for gas. While one of the brothers was inside the store and the other was distracted by the GPS, the student bounded from the car and ran across the road to another service station. There he called the police and described his vehicle. The police chased the bombers, capturing one and killing the other.

Although the student initially gave assistance to the bombers, he was not charged with “aiding and abetting”, because he was not acting of his own free will. He was forced, at gunpoint, to assist in their escape. The surviving bomber was held responsible for his actions, because he had acted deliberately, of his own free will.

A person’s will is their specific intent for the immediate or distant future. A person usually chooses what they will do. The choice sets their intent, and their intent motivates and directs their subsequent actions.

Free will is when this choice is made free of coercion and undue influence. The student’s decision to assist the bombers’ escape was coerced. It was not freely chosen.

Coercion can be a literal “gun to the head”, or any other threat of harm sufficient to compel one person to subordinate their will to the will of another.

Undue influence is any extraordinary condition that effectively removes a person’s control of their choice. Certain mental illnesses can distort a person’s perception of reality by hallucinations or delusions. Other brain impairments can directly damage the ability to reason. Yet another form may subject them to an irresistible compulsion. Hypnosis would be an undue influence. Authoritative command, as exercised by a parent over a child, an officer over a soldier, or a doctor over a patient, is another. Any of these special circumstances may remove a person’s control over their choices.

Why Do We Care About Free Will?

Responsibility for the benefit or harm of an action is assigned to the most meaningful and relevant causes. A cause is meaningful if it efficiently explains why an event happened. A cause is relevant if we can do something about it.

The means of correction is determined by the nature of the cause: (a) If the person is forced at gunpoint to commit a crime, then all that is needed to correct his or her behavior is to remove that threat. (b) If a person’s choice is unduly influenced by mental illness, then correction will require psychiatric treatment. (c) If a person is of sound mind and deliberately chooses to commit the act for their own profit, then correction requires changing how they think about such choices in the future.

In all these cases, society’s interest is to prevent future harm. And it is the harm that justifies taking appropriate action. Until the offender’s behavior is corrected, society protects itself from further injury by securing the offender, usually in a prison or mental institution, as appropriate.

So, the role of free will, in questions of moral and legal responsibility, is to distinguish between deliberate acts versus acts caused by coercion or undue influence. This distinction guides our approach to correction and prevention.

Free will makes the empirical distinction between a person autonomously choosing for themselves versus a choice imposed upon them by someone or something else.

All animals are autonomous. All animals think and act according to their makeup, their behaviour, thought and response being determined by it. Nobody chooses their inherent condition, yet it is inherent condition that determines how they think, what they think and do.

Free will plays no part, nor does it tell us a thing about a person, who they are, what they think or do.

The article talks about an ideology.

The customer in the restaurant does not need to choose his "inherent condition" in order to choose what he will have for dinner.

The customer's "inherent condition" is exactly identical to who and what he is right now. So, however you slice it, it is actually the customer that is choosing for himself what he will have for dinner.

When the customer is free to choose for himself what he will have for dinner, then his choice is a freely chosen "I will".

This is not an ideology. It's simple English. We call a cat a "cat" and we call a dog a "dog", in order to speak specifically of one rather than the other. We call a choice that someone forced us to make "coercion" and we call a choice we were free to make for ourselves "free will", in order to speak specifically of one rather than the other.

Back in the 1960's the United States was waging a war against communism in Viet Nam, and young men could be drafted into the armed forces against their will. Some volunteered to go. If you look up "voluntary" in the Oxford English Dictionary, you'll find: "A. adj. I. Characterized by free will or choice; freely done or bestowed."

So, the notion of free will is not an "ideology". It is a term used to indicate that the person made a choice for themselves, rather than the choice being forced upon them against their will.

 

[steve_bank]

The reference to the judge on pornography expresses the issue, but does not answer.

If you ask he average American what it means they will likely say freedom from government coercion, as with vaccines. Freedom of choice, you can choose to buy a Ford or Chevy.

Ask a Christian and he may say free will is freedom to choose to follow god's will or not, the freedom to choose between good and evil.

Some things can not be precisely defined because here is no reference point. In that case it is defied by definition, analogy or mataphor.

Ask in a philosophical context and it will bring in questions like determinism. The deabtae bgins on the assumption we all know what free will means.

The word rock in itself means nothing. In a group I point to a an object and say that is called a rock has meaning. Everyone nods ther heds and stars calling it a rock.

Free will is a,b,c.
An example of free will is ...
An example of not having free will is ...

To me free will means an unconditioned choice. Our choices are always conditioned by experience. We also have genetic conditioning.

You freely choose to buy a Ford instead of a Chevy, ooesn't marketing and adverting play nto it?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If you ask he average American what it means they will likely say freedom from government coercion, as with vaccines.

General dictionaries typically have two very distinct definitions of "free will":

Merriam-Webster on-line:
1: voluntary choice or decision 'I do this of my own free will'
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Oxford English Dictionary:
1.a. Spontaneous or unconstrained will; unforced choice; (also) inclination to act without suggestion from others. Esp. in of one's (own) free will and similar expressions.
2. The power of an individual to make free choices, not determined by divine predestination, the laws of physical causality, fate, etc.

Wiktionary:
1. A person's natural inclination; unforced choice.
2. (philosophy) The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions, without predestination, fate etc.

Average people use the first definition. This is a choice that someone makes for themselves, free of coercion and undue influence (a "voluntary" or "unforced choice"). And this is the definition that is used when assessing a person's moral or legal responsibility for their actions. So, it has an operational meaning.

Philosophy has come up with the second definition, which is a choice that is "free of causal necessity". Causal necessity is the notion that every event is reliably caused by prior events. The philosophical issue is whether "causal necessity" is something that we can or even need to be free of.

Freedom of choice, you can choose to buy a Ford or Chevy.

That would be the first definition.

Ask a Christian and he may say free will is freedom to choose to follow god's will or not, the freedom to choose between good and evil.

That would be the second definition. God, by omniscience and omnipotence, would also be omni-responsible for everything that happens. Christians suggest that God has restrained his omnipotence by granting free will to humans. But, I don't wish to get into theological discussions of free will, because I'm a Humanist, and I am convinced that free will is a secular issue that was kidnapped by the theists to give their God a "get-out-of-jail-free" card.

Some things can not be precisely defined because here is no reference point. In that case it is defied by definition, analogy or mataphor.

That's a very important point. What is the reference point for a "freedom"? A freedom becomes meaningful by referencing to some meaningful and relevant constraint. For example, we set the bird free from its cage. Or, the lady at the grocery store was handing out free samples (free of charge). Or, we enjoy freedom of speech (free of censorship). Or, I participated in Libet's experiment of my own free will (free of coercion and undue influence).

Ask in a philosophical context and it will bring in questions like determinism. The debate begins on the assumption we all know what free will means.

Yes, that is the key question. What is the meaningful and relevant constraint that philosophy suggests its free will must be free of?

To me free will means an unconditioned choice. Our choices are always conditioned by experience. We also have genetic conditioning.

So, is our conditioning, either by genetics or by prior experiences, a meaningful and relevant constraint upon our ability to choose what we will do?

You freely choose to buy a Ford instead of a Chevy, doesn't marketing and adverting play into it?

That's is the distinction between an ordinary influence and an undue influence. Ordinary influences, like marketing, do not force us to choose the Ford or the Chevy. But a guy with a gun telling us that we must choose the Ford or he'll blow our brains out would be an undue influence.

 

[DBT]

That being the compatibilist definition of free will.

It would also be the pragmatic and the empirical definition of free will.

The pragmatist looks for the meaning of our words in their actual usage in practical matters. For example, what does "free will" mean in the sentence: "I participated in Libet's experiment of my own free will". It simply means I was not coerced or unduly influenced into participating in the experiment.

The empiricist looks for objective evidence of things. For example, events are things that actually happen. When free will is viewed as an event in which a person decides for themselves what they will do, we can actually observe these events taking place in the real world. We can walk into any restaurant and observe countless events of people reading the menu and deciding for themselves what they will have for lunch.

Both the pragmatist and the empiricist would find problems with any other definitions of free will, other than a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.

Empirical? That would have to include agency. Our will, be it conscious or unconscious is not the means by which decisions are made or actions taken, it's a matter of form and function, not Will. Not taking the nature of agency into account compromises the compatibilist premises and definition.

Empirically, in the restaurant, the customer is the agent placing the order with the waiter. The customer sets in motion the series of events that result in his getting a meal and the bill.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "agent" as "1. a. A person who or thing which acts upon someone or something; one who or that which exerts power; the doer of an action."

So the first agent is the customer, the customer is the source of the order. The waiter is the agent that carries the order to the chef and brings back the dinner and the bill to the customer. The chef is the agent that prepares the meal.

But, from our prior conversations, I know that you want to get into the neuroscience details. Within the customer, the agency that reads the menu and makes the choice is the brain. The brain is a collection of neurological functions, that are located in specific areas. Neuroscience has plotted the locations of many functions within the neural architecture. They do this by observing behavioral changes in people who have injuries to specific areas of the brain (and also by surgical experimentation on various animal species).

The brain is constantly processing information and deciding what the person will do under different circumstances. In the restaurant, the customer must reduce the many options on the menu to a single dinner order, that is, he must "choose" what he will have for dinner.

Choosing is a process that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice. The choice is usually in the form of an "I will", as in "I will have the Chef Salad for dinner". The "I will" expresses the chosen intent. The chosen intent motivates and directs the body's actions as it carries out that intent, for example, by telling the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please."

Recent neuroscience has pointed out that much of the brain's decision making process takes place beneath conscious awareness, with awareness often showing up after the decision is made. However, this does not change the fact that it is the brain that is the agent performing decision making on behalf of the person. And, since it is the person's own brain, it is the person's own decision.

So, the neuroscience of agency is that a person's brain is deciding what the person will do.

There appears to be no problem with agency in the empiricist view. All sciences, including neuroscience, consider things from the empirical viewpoint. Neuroscience uses tools to observe the behavior of the brain as it relates to the behavior of the person. Both are empirical phenomena.

Yes, the brain is constantly processing information, but this is not a willed process. Form equals function, equals output: decisions made actions taken.

The brain doesn't choose its own form, function or output. That is determined by evolution and environment, an interaction of genes and circumstances. An intelligent information processor responding to events.

Decisions are neither willed or subject to will, they are determined/fixed by the state of the system.

Determinism allowing no alternate actions, determined/fixed does not entail freedom.

Will plays no part in decision making, it's drive or impulse to act after the fact, therefore free will is not a driver or regulator of behaviour.

Without the ability to regulate or make a difference, free will does not exist within a determined system.

Determinism and freedom of will are incompatible.

 

[Jarhyn]

The reference to the judge on pornography expresses the issue, but does not answer.

If you ask he average American what it means they will likely say freedom from government coercion, as with vaccines. Freedom of choice, you can choose to buy a Ford or Chevy.

Ask a Christian and he may say free will is freedom to choose to follow god's will or not, the freedom to choose between good and evil.

Some things can not be precisely defined because here is no reference point. In that case it is defied by definition, analogy or mataphor.

Ask in a philosophical context and it will bring in questions like determinism. The deabtae bgins on the assumption we all know what free will means.

The word rock in itself means nothing. In a group I point to a an object and say that is called a rock has meaning. Everyone nods ther heds and stars calling it a rock.

Free will is a,b,c.
An example of free will is ...
An example of not having free will is ...

To me free will means an unconditioned choice. Our choices are always conditioned by experience. We also have genetic conditioning.

You freely choose to buy a Ford instead of a Chevy, ooesn't marketing and adverting play nto it?

So, would you like a more concrete example, which is visibly defined all the way to interaction of bits on a binary field? Because I can effect this, such that "free will" is defined in a way that can at least be communicated strongly enough that it can be agreed on that we are observing some real property that observably, objectively impacts the calculus of responsibility?

 

[steve_bank]

Jarhyn

Go right ahead, no one is stopping you. You do have free will, right?

Free will is not objectively testable. Same with happiness and sadness. When I wet to a hosita; in pain I was asked to rate my pain on a scale from 1-10. 1 tolerable 10 excruciating. Pain med dosage was increased until the number I have went below a number. There is no way to objectively measure and access pain.

To me objectively it would be free will is a,b,c and d,e,f how it is demonstrated.

Regadless, every day we have to make real decisions that affect ourselves and others, so to me the question is irrelevant.

The issue does have some relevance. If there is no free will is someone becoming criminal predetermined? It was touched on in the old Law And Order TV show, a criminal defende based on a claim the criminal is genetically disposed to violence.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Yes, the brain is constantly processing information, but this is not a willed process. Form equals function, equals output: decisions made actions taken.

So, we can agree that one of the brain's functions is to make decisions that govern the body's deliberate actions. For example, I just deliberately raised my hand and waved to no one. In addition to our deliberate actions, different parts of the brain control our autonomic functions like breathing and heart beats. And our reflexive actions are controlled by the spinal cord, causing us to quickly remove our hand from a hot surface before the brain even experiences pain. There is lots of stuff going on all the time in our central and peripheral nervous systems.

But our main concern in the discussion of free will is just our deliberate, intentional actions. Because free will is about our chosen intentions, our deliberate will, the will to pursue some action for our own goals, reasons, and interests.

The brain doesn't choose its own form, function or output. That is determined by evolution and environment, an interaction of genes and circumstances. An intelligent information processor responding to events.

Right. We did not choose to be an intelligent species with the ability to make deliberate choices, but, here we are, making choices for our own reasons, every day. And, because this awesome website saves my work in progress, today I'm going to stop and have breakfast. ... And, I'm back in my comment. Awesome.

Decisions are neither willed or subject to will, they are determined/fixed by the state of the system.

"Will" is our specific intention for the immediate ("I will fix breakfast now") or distant ("last will and testament") future. That deliberate intention motivates and directs our subsequent actions.

Will is part of what determines and fixes the current state of the system. For example, a little while ago I decided to have breakfast, and finish this comment later. That deliberate intention motivated and directed my actions as I popped a dinner into the microwave, turned on the TV, and ate my breakfast while watching the latest developments in Ukraine. Now, my intention is to complete this comment, which means the state of my brain will be focusing on what you are saying, and offering my corrections.

Will is more properly viewed as a directing force, originating within the brain, and driving the brain in a given direction. It is kind of a post-it-note that the brain creates to remind itself what it is doing. Will is the brain's attention to doing something specific, like fixing breakfast versus writing a comment.

Determinism allowing no alternate actions, determined/fixed does not entail freedom.

The only thing that determinism disallows is indeterminism. Determinism asserts that every event will always be the reliable result of prior events, going back into the past or forward into the future as far as anyone can imagine. As long as this test is satisfied, determinism is satisfied.

If the notion of alternate actions, such as whether to have the steak or the salad for dinner, happens within the causal chain of the brain's events, then they cannot be excluded without breaking determinism.

So, when a person decides to have dinner at a restaurant, that specific intention will cause him to walk into the restaurant, sit at a table, look at the menu of alternate possibilities, and choose what he will have for dinner. He will communicate his chosen will to the waiter, saying, "I will have the Chef Salad, please". The waiter will bring him the salad and the bill for his meal. He will responsibly pay the cashier on his way out, and his original intention will be satisfied. And now it will be up to him once more to decide what he will do next.

Every event in that scenario was the reliable result of prior events. This includes the mental events caused by the physical events within the person's own brain, all under the direction of the brain's own chosen intention to have dinner at the restaurant.

This will include all thoughts regarding whether to order the steak or the salad. It will include the reasons why the salad was the better choice for dinner. It will include not just the thought that "I will order the salad", but also the thought that "I could have ordered the steak". And both of those thoughts will be accurate descriptions of what did and did not happen.

Will plays no part in decision making, it's drive or impulse to act after the fact, therefore free will is not a driver or regulator of behaviour.

Our customer's willingness to have dinner was caused by feelings of hunger. The feelings of hunger are produced by the collection of neurons that monitor the body's energy needs. These neurons compete for the brain's attention. When the workday was done, these feelings of hunger took precedence and became effective motivators. (A kind of biological will).

Without the ability to regulate or make a difference, free will does not exist within a determined system.

Free will exists as the property of a choosing event. If the choice was made by my own brain for my own reasons, then it was a freely chosen "I will have the salad instead of the steak", or "I will have dinner at the restaurant instead of at home". But what was my choice "free of"? It was free of coercion and undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Determinism and freedom of will are incompatible.

As long as all of the events are reliably caused by prior events, determinism is satisfied.
As long as the choosing event was free of coercion and undue influence, free will is satisfied.
There is no incompatibility between determinism and free will, when both are properly understood.

(The only issue is how to get everyone to understand them properly!)

 

[Jarhyn]

Jarhyn

Go right ahead, no one is stopping you. You do have free will, right?

Free will is not objectively testable. Same with happiness and sadness. When I wet to a hosita; in pain I was asked to rate my pain on a scale from 1-10. 1 tolerable 10 excruciating. Pain med dosage was increased until the number I have went below a number. There is no way to objectively measure and access pain.

To me objectively it would be free will is a,b,c and d,e,f how it is demonstrated.

Regadless, every day we have to make real decisions that affect ourselves and others, so to me the question is irrelevant.

The issue does have some relevance. If there is no free will is someone becoming criminal predetermined? It was touched on in the old Law And Order TV show, a criminal defende based on a claim the criminal is genetically disposed to violence.

That's the thing: free will is determined as the result of an objective test.

I would pose that a defendant "genetically predisposed" to a certain trait is arguing for MORE oversight and necessity of confinement: you are saying they are OBJECTIVELY likely to behave badly. It makes them more impugned as a causal agent, not less.

Really, "will" is held as a state with a relationship to some requirement. Whether the will is free or not depends on whether the system will determine that the requirement is satisfied.

Take for example my stupid dwarf game ya? Entities, well defined ones, hold some thing called "will": they have a task which is "assigned" by whatever mechanism with a "goal", and then the task itself is formed as a series of steps linked to that will.

Each step is itself a "sub-will" which is itself a "will": the major will is broken into minor wills each with its own intermediate requirements.

One such will will be "open door".

Whether or not the door is locked some time after the task is decided upon and launched determines, in a fundamental way, whether their will to open the door was "free". Either the door was locked, and their will was constrained, or the door was unlocked and their will was free.

Now, when the door opens, THEY are in that moment THE causal agent for THE door being opened. They are "responsible" for opening the door.

There is, as I mentioned, also an available distinction here between "free will" and "freely held will".

These are thusly concepts upon which tight calculus is available for tight systems, and so sloppier calculus is available for sloppier things.

 

[DBT]

Yes, the brain is constantly processing information, but this is not a willed process. Form equals function, equals output: decisions made actions taken.

So, we can agree that one of the brain's functions is to make decisions that govern the body's deliberate actions. For example, I just deliberately raised my hand and waved to no one. In addition to our deliberate actions, different parts of the brain control our autonomic functions like breathing and heart beats. And our reflexive actions are controlled by the spinal cord, causing us to quickly remove our hand from a hot surface before the brain even experiences pain. There is lots of stuff going on all the time in our central and peripheral nervous systems.

Sure, whatever we do consciously or unconsciously, the brain is doing it. The brain forms and generates us, our experience of self and sense of conscious agency.

As shown in numerous experiments, conscious will or agency is an illusion. An illusion that is exposed whenever something goes amiss with the underlying means of production.

The underlying means of production, as mentioned and supported by neuroscience, does not operate on the principles of will, wish or alternate action.

As will doesn't operate the system, the label of 'free will' is incorrect.

Being incorrect, there is no case to argue. Free will is just an ideology.

But our main concern in the discussion of free will is just our deliberate, intentional actions. Because free will is about our chosen intentions, our deliberate will, the will to pursue some action for our own goals, reasons, and interests

Deliberate and intentional is determined by neural networks and information processing - antecedents - not free will. Free will doesn't run the show, neural networks do. Form and function determines deliberate and intentional actions.....actions - being determined - that have no alternatives, no freedom to have done otherwise, therefore necessitated, not freely willed.