What is free will?

[Juma]

That comes across as reasonable. What brought that on?

Your belief that ”wants” enable ”free will”. There is no free will, just will.
And the will is what it is. You are not running your body. You are what the body does.

When you are acting of your own free will, you are freely doing what you want.

Trees don't have wants--and thus can never act of their own free will.

Hm. What happens if we remove ”free” from this:

”When you are acting of your own will, you are freely doing what you want.
Trees don't have wants--and thus can never act of their own will.”

You see? ”Free” is superflous and doesnt denote anything.

A computer that mimics having wants is not something that has wants.

Wants is just concious goals. We have lot of unconcious goals that affects our behaviour.

We are just post-fact analysing what the body already has acted upon.
Our concious selves are supervision systems that analysis our action and explains to ourselves (and this informs the body) how well our actions work.
That gives the body better information how to perform!

There is still nothing magical with will or choice that prevents a machine to do it.

To be aware of it as we humans are? That is a different story..

 

[fast]

When you are acting of your own free will, you are freely doing what you want.

Trees don't have wants--and thus can never act of their own free will.

Hm. What happens if we remove ”free” from this:

”When you are acting of your own will, you are freely doing what you want.
Trees don't have wants--and thus can never act of their own will.”

You see? ”Free” is superflous and doesnt denote anything.

In certain contexts, explicitly saying "free" as an addendum can come across as repetitive, especially if context suggests that action is of one's own accord, but saying "free" makes it abundantly clear in contexts that might not suggest absence of compulsion that there was no compulsory forces contributing to one's actions.

If you ask the lady that you don't know that was a victim of a car jacking if she got out the car because she wanted to, she might say "yes" silently thinking that saving her life is something she wanted to do while knowing that getting out the car may maximize her chances of survival.

Saying "free" makes it explicit (and sometimes possibly redundent).

If I angrily say, "do as you will," and if you do as you choose but under threat of compulsion, then although you've done as you've chosen, it wasn't of your own free will.

 

[DBT]

There's very little that I disagree with here. I agree with the second part, and I agree with most of the first part.

I don't see that it implies autonomy (from the brain and its activities). I accept that I cannot make decisions without a brain. A brain's function enables me to make decisions. What you suggest is that we are our brains. We are more than that.

The way you phrase it does appear to imply some degree of autonomy for conscious self. Your comment, for example - ''a brain's function enables me to make decisions'' appears to delineates 'me' and 'a brains function' in the sense that 'a brains function' enables 'me' to 'make decisions' - as if the brain and its activity is a means for 'me' to make decisions rather than it simply being the brain that makes decisions in the conscious form of 'me' making decisions....if you can see that distinction.

 

[Juma]

When you are acting of your own free will, you are freely doing what you want.

Trees don't have wants--and thus can never act of their own free will.

Hm. What happens if we remove ”free” from this:

”When you are acting of your own will, you are freely doing what you want.
Trees don't have wants--and thus can never act of their own will.”

You see? ”Free” is superflous and doesnt denote anything.

In certain contexts, explicitly saying "free" as an addendum can come across as repetitive, especially if context suggests that action is of one's own accord, but saying "free" makes it abundantly clear in contexts that might not suggest absence of compulsion that there was no compulsory forces contributing to one's actions.

If you ask the lady that you don't know that was a victim of a car jacking if she got out the car because she wanted to, she might say "yes" silently thinking that saving her life is something she wanted to do while knowing that getting out the car may maximize her chances of survival.

Saying "free" makes it explicit (and sometimes possibly redundent).

If I angrily say, "do as you will," and if you do as you choose but under threat of compulsion, then although you've done as you've chosen, it wasn't of your own free will.

you are changing the subject. my post isnt about compulsion or not. leave that out.
it was about will for a tree vs a human.

 

[fast]

In certain contexts, explicitly saying "free" as an addendum can come across as repetitive, especially if context suggests that action is of one's own accord, but saying "free" makes it abundantly clear in contexts that might not suggest absence of compulsion that there was no compulsory forces contributing to one's actions.

If you ask the lady that you don't know that was a victim of a car jacking if she got out the car because she wanted to, she might say "yes" silently thinking that saving her life is something she wanted to do while knowing that getting out the car may maximize her chances of survival.

Saying "free" makes it explicit (and sometimes possibly redundent).

If I angrily say, "do as you will," and if you do as you choose but under threat of compulsion, then although you've done as you've chosen, it wasn't of your own free will.

you are changing the subject. my post isnt about compulsion or not. leave that out.
it was about will for a tree vs a human.

Will is mind-dependent, and since a tree has no mind, it has no will--unlike a human who does have a mind and sometimes acts according to its will.

 

[fast]

There's very little that I disagree with here. I agree with the second part, and I agree with most of the first part.

I don't see that it implies autonomy (from the brain and its activities). I accept that I cannot make decisions without a brain. A brain's function enables me to make decisions. What you suggest is that we are our brains. We are more than that.

The way you phrase it does appear to imply some degree of autonomy for conscious self. Your comment, for example - ''a brain's function enables me to make decisions'' appears to delineates 'me' and 'a brains function' in the sense that 'a brains function' enables 'me' to 'make decisions' - as if the brain and its activity is a means for 'me' to make decisions rather than it simply being the brain that makes decisions in the conscious form of 'me' making decisions....if you can see that distinction.

I see the distinction, and when they bury me, they'll bury more than a nonfunctioning brain. Recall, I am more than a functioning brain. When I'm dead, I'm more than a nonfunctioning brain.

Further:
A functioning brain is required for me to have a mind, but if I'm brain dead, there is no mind, and without a mind, the essential part of me that makes me, me, is gone, but when they bury my body, they are burying me, the body (and a nonfunctioning brain), but no mind is buried.

The part of me that is neither the body nor the brain itself (but rather something that is a consequence of a functioning brain), the mind is more palatable as something that can be said to make decisions. Even still, there are phrases like "I made up my mind" too, that have this seeming implication you speak of.

I'm open minded to people of science teaching us things, but when they do, I try to incorporate their teachings without forsaking how normal people speak. Language is ... important. It's not always that what we say is incorrect; the problem is that when new things are learned, we are often told that we were mistaken about what we thought, but that's not always it--and when language gets twisted along the way, a defense of a way of speaking can unfortunately give the appearance of denying what science teaches.

I've always said that it's not the science that is the problem. The experiments, methodology, the whole shootin' match, all fine. It's the scientists that is at issue. They do great too, until they get to the very end and interpret their results using words.

Philosophy has produced people that have come to say the darndest things, and I gotta tell ya, scientists do a wonderful job as they keep us on the forefront of new knowledge, but when it comes to speak of their wonderful scientific findings, the philosopher inside them bubbles to the surface when they stop doing what they do and start telling us the implications of what they have found.

 

[Juma]

In certain contexts, explicitly saying "free" as an addendum can come across as repetitive, especially if context suggests that action is of one's own accord, but saying "free" makes it abundantly clear in contexts that might not suggest absence of compulsion that there was no compulsory forces contributing to one's actions.

If you ask the lady that you don't know that was a victim of a car jacking if she got out the car because she wanted to, she might say "yes" silently thinking that saving her life is something she wanted to do while knowing that getting out the car may maximize her chances of survival.

Saying "free" makes it explicit (and sometimes possibly redundent).

If I angrily say, "do as you will," and if you do as you choose but under threat of compulsion, then although you've done as you've chosen, it wasn't of your own free will.

you are changing the subject. my post isnt about compulsion or not. leave that out.
it was about will for a tree vs a human.

Will is mind-dependent, and since a tree has no mind, it has no will--unlike a human who does have a mind and sometimes acts according to its will.

Yeah. And as you see ”free” doesnt come into the equation.

 

[fast]

Will is mind-dependent, and since a tree has no mind, it has no will--unlike a human who does have a mind and sometimes acts according to its will.

Yeah. And as you see ”free” doesnt come into the equation.

Exactly. When I limit all human behavior to acting of their own accord, adding "free" to their will adds only redundancy. I've said that already. You do know, however, that people sometimes act in accordance to the will of others, right?

Let me use a lil flowery talk and see if the message can be jarred into being gleaned. I'll revert back to a semblance of normalcy shortly.

People do not always act at the hest of their own governance. They will sometimes act in accordance to the will of another. When the girl who was going about her day and stumbled upon the gunman's path, she no longer continued that leg of life's journey where she was only going to do what she pleases. With that muzzle near her ear and the fear set in, the cell door to her will was shut close. It was no longer free of compulsory forces.

Although she technically retained control of the choice she could make, she chose under duress. She chose to acquiese to the will of the gunman in all of the radiant stopping power he had to bring. In that instance, the stars were no longer aligned and a mismatch was amongst them--her now following his will; her now acting of his accord. Her will was jailed.

A will free of compulsion comes only when compulsion dissipates.

Recall, free will is the absence of compulsion. In most average everyday occurances, you are acting in accordance to your will and doing as you please. You're doing so free of compulsion whether you explicitly announce it or not.

 

[DBT]

There's very little that I disagree with here. I agree with the second part, and I agree with most of the first part.

I don't see that it implies autonomy (from the brain and its activities). I accept that I cannot make decisions without a brain. A brain's function enables me to make decisions. What you suggest is that we are our brains. We are more than that.

The way you phrase it does appear to imply some degree of autonomy for conscious self. Your comment, for example - ''a brain's function enables me to make decisions'' appears to delineates 'me' and 'a brains function' in the sense that 'a brains function' enables 'me' to 'make decisions' - as if the brain and its activity is a means for 'me' to make decisions rather than it simply being the brain that makes decisions in the conscious form of 'me' making decisions....if you can see that distinction.

I see the distinction, and when they bury me, they'll bury more than a nonfunctioning brain. Recall, I am more than a functioning brain. When I'm dead, I'm more than a nonfunctioning brain.

Further:
A functioning brain is required for me to have a mind, but if I'm brain dead, there is no mind, and without a mind, the essential part of me that makes me, me, is gone, but when they bury my body, they are burying me, the body (and a nonfunctioning brain), but no mind is buried.

The part of me that is neither the body nor the brain itself (but rather something that is a consequence of a functioning brain), the mind is more palatable as something that can be said to make decisions. Even still, there are phrases like "I made up my mind" too, that have this seeming implication you speak of.

I'm open minded to people of science teaching us things, but when they do, I try to incorporate their teachings without forsaking how normal people speak. Language is ... important. It's not always that what we say is incorrect; the problem is that when new things are learned, we are often told that we were mistaken about what we thought, but that's not always it--and when language gets twisted along the way, a defense of a way of speaking can unfortunately give the appearance of denying what science teaches.

I've always said that it's not the science that is the problem. The experiments, methodology, the whole shootin' match, all fine. It's the scientists that is at issue. They do great too, until they get to the very end and interpret their results using words.

Philosophy has produced people that have come to say the darndest things, and I gotta tell ya, scientists do a wonderful job as they keep us on the forefront of new knowledge, but when it comes to speak of their wonderful scientific findings, the philosopher inside them bubbles to the surface when they stop doing what they do and start telling us the implications of what they have found.

What is there to interpret? In the most basic terms, a sufficiently hard knock on the head invariably effects consciousness, effects self awareness, decision making, feelings, emotions and willed actions.....why is that, if not the brain as the sole agency of these abilities, attributes and features?

As for language, how people normally speak, ie, 'it is the person who decides,' 'it is the person who acts,' etc, this is just a general reference to the human being as a whole. A reference that in no way describes the underlying process that enables a person to do these things, to be self aware, to think, decide and act.

 

[fast]

I see the distinction, and when they bury me, they'll bury more than a nonfunctioning brain. Recall, I am more than a functioning brain. When I'm dead, I'm more than a nonfunctioning brain.

Further:
A functioning brain is required for me to have a mind, but if I'm brain dead, there is no mind, and without a mind, the essential part of me that makes me, me, is gone, but when they bury my body, they are burying me, the body (and a nonfunctioning brain), but no mind is buried.

The part of me that is neither the body nor the brain itself (but rather something that is a consequence of a functioning brain), the mind is more palatable as something that can be said to make decisions. Even still, there are phrases like "I made up my mind" too, that have this seeming implication you speak of.

I'm open minded to people of science teaching us things, but when they do, I try to incorporate their teachings without forsaking how normal people speak. Language is ... important. It's not always that what we say is incorrect; the problem is that when new things are learned, we are often told that we were mistaken about what we thought, but that's not always it--and when language gets twisted along the way, a defense of a way of speaking can unfortunately give the appearance of denying what science teaches.

I've always said that it's not the science that is the problem. The experiments, methodology, the whole shootin' match, all fine. It's the scientists that is at issue. They do great too, until they get to the very end and interpret their results using words.

Philosophy has produced people that have come to say the darndest things, and I gotta tell ya, scientists do a wonderful job as they keep us on the forefront of new knowledge, but when it comes to speak of their wonderful scientific findings, the philosopher inside them bubbles to the surface when they stop doing what they do and start telling us the implications of what they have found.

What is there to interpret? In the most basic terms, a sufficiently hard knock on the head invariably effects consciousness, effects self awareness, decision making, feelings, emotions and willed actions.....why is that, if not the brain as the sole agency of these abilities, attributes and features?

As for language, how people normally speak, ie, 'it is the person who decides,' 'it is the person who acts,' etc, this is just a general reference to the human being as a whole. A reference that in no way describes the underlying process that enables a person to do these things, to be self aware, to think, decide and act.

You're personifying an organ. Not just any ole organ but a mighty important one, I agree, but an organ nonetheless.

I have agency, not my brain. I couldn't without it, but that's not the issue. You speak (quite explicitly) and say that the brain makes decisions. Although I could accept that in general conversation (as a metaphorical stand-in for functions), I cannot accept that as being literally true--as if to say it IS me. The brain functions, but it is neither a decision maker nor person-it is not a person or organ that makes decisions. I am a person that makes decisions. My brain functions and allows me to make decisions. You're making it sound like they're one and the same. I am not an organ. I am an organism.

 

[fast]

Some words maintain their link and do not cross boundaries. Here's another word that I think has already crossed over: "allows."

If I didn't think it was an acceptably neutral term, I'd go apeshit over someone saying that our lungs allow us to breath. Allow, as in permit, requiring contemplation, something it most assuredly cannot do? I don't make that argument because it has evolved and has become ambiguous. In one sense, to allow requires a biological mind, yet on neutral turf, we find it perfectly acceptable to say such things.

Even if our language has advanced so far (more like run amuck) as to bring neutrality to the term, "decision," it's certainly more akin to how one would speak of cells deciding on when to divide.

Language is a metaphorical hell--literally

 

[DBT]

You could say that lungs enable us to breath. Without lungs we cannot breath. Just as without a brain we cannot think. Without a brain we cannot decide or act, without a brain we are not aware of our environment or our selves. It is the role of the lungs to provide us with oxygen. It is the role of the brain to navigate and interact with the world and its objects and events by means of conscious representation of the world and self.

 

[fast]

edited out

 

[untermensche]

Free will is that power one has to form opinions and then express them.

If a person does not think they have formed their own opinions then they should not express something they don't believe in.

An authentic person is one that forms opinions with their mind. They form them. They shape them. They actively create them.

A robot spews opinions and has no idea why.

And nobody gets to claim they are just some robot.

If you give an opinion you have to give the reasons why.

If you say "I am following what I think the science says" you have made a free conclusion and proven conclusions can be made freely based on ideas.

 

[DBT]

Nobody is claiming that we are Robots. You appear to have missed the point.

 

[untermensche]

To say the brain acts is to be a robot. No real decision is made. The outcome is a complex reflex.

To say the mind acts is to be a free agent. To act on ideas, not reflexes, is to be a free agent.

 

[DBT]

To say the brain acts is to be a robot. No real decision is made. The outcome is a complex reflex.

No, a robotic response implies the inability to learn and adapt. The brain is an interactive, intelligent system, able to adapt, able to adjust.

To say the mind acts is to be a free agent. To act on ideas, not reflexes, is to be a free agent

The mind cannot be separated from the brain and its mind generating activity. You keep repeating your homunculus fallacy, a mind brain separation.

 

[bilby]

To say the brain acts is to be a robot. No real decision is made. The outcome is a complex reflex.

No, a robotic response implies the inability to learn and adapt. The brain is an interactive, intelligent system, able to adapt, able to adjust.

To say the mind acts is to be a free agent. To act on ideas, not reflexes, is to be a free agent

The mind cannot be separated from the brain and its mind generating activity. You keep repeating your homunculus fallacy, a mind brain separation.

It doesn't matter anyway - Argument from Consequences is a logical fallacy. Even if the unavoidable inference of an hypothesis was that people are robots with no freedom to act whatsoever, that consequence has exactly zero influence on the probability that the hypothesis is correct.

 

[untermensche]

To say the brain acts is to be a robot. No real decision is made. The outcome is a complex reflex.

No, a robotic response implies the inability to learn and adapt. The brain is an interactive, intelligent system, able to adapt, able to adjust.

A robot can learn and adapt. But it only learns what it was "programmed" to learn and only adapts in ways it was "programmed" to adapt.

There is no possibility of freedom or something happening beyond "programming".

To say the mind acts is to be a free agent. To act on ideas, not reflexes, is to be a free agent

The mind cannot be separated from the brain and its mind generating activity. You keep repeating your homunculus fallacy, a mind brain separation.

The mind IS separated from the brain.

You can see the brain, examine it in microscopic detail.

The mind you cannot find anywhere.

You can't show me where the mind is.

No matter how much your mind wants to.

The only thing you know about the mind of others is what they report to you.

You don't know how it arises or what it is capable of doing.

Your claim that it can only do what the brain can do is an empty empty claim. No matter how many times you make it.

The flame does what the wood and oxygen do not.

 

[DBT]

A robot can learn and adapt. But it only learns what it was "programmed" to learn and only adapts in ways it was "programmed" to adapt.

You are conflating 'robot' and ''artificial intelligence'' - there is a vast difference between the two. The rest of your post is irrelevant because it flows from your category error.

A 'robotic' system is not necessarily an intelligent interactive system, AI, in fact the name suggests that it is not.