What is free will?

[ruby sparks]

Not quite. You still have trouble wrapping your head around compatibilism, apparently because you equate "free" with "uncaused" rather than "unobstructed".

Actually, 'uncaused' would effectively be 'random'.

The future is where the real freedom lies.

Really? How?

Think about how we use the word "automaton". An automoton is a robot that always predictably performs the same actions under the same circumstances. It cannot change its behavior. It has no "free will". We are essentially automatons that can change our behavior to effect different future outcomes under the same circumstances. We do so to avoid punishment, pain, and grief. Or to achieve reward, pleasure, and happiness.

I think you are confusing 'very very complicated' with 'free'. At every point, everything is determined (barring random effects). It doesn't matter how complicated the decision 'algorithm' is. Given the past a machine (including a human one) would do exactly the same again if the same past were rerun. Or at least it appears there is no way to explain events otherwise. Determinism (barring random effects) rules, with an iron fist, it seems, and free will is not compatible with it. To say otherwise would arguably be an oxymoron.

And the issue isn't just 'free' but 'will' also. So 'free will' implies both. That's an even higher bar than 'free'. It implies conscious volition to enact the supposed freeness.

Compatibilism is, imo, essentially a dodge, or at best a (supposedly) pragmatic way to avoid what seems to be an inconvenient truth, one that you may still have trouble wrapping your head around (touche). I wouldn't have finished with that if you hadn't started with it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Free will is a vague term. Any simple answer to a vague term will be meaningless. Any philosopher who discusses free will always start by defining the words to make them precise. Anything that follows will be true.

That's the problem with discussing free will. Everybody on all sides are correct. Because they're all using different definitions of what it means to will something and what it means to be free.

Which explains why these discussions always end up in "yes, it is", "no it isn't", "I can't believe you're so stupid", "says the stupid person" and so on.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I just thought I'd add that the Western fixation with free will is a result of Roman jurisprudence, inherited by Christianity. But they didn't necessarily believe in free will. It was a compromise they made in order to make their criminal trials quicker. Which was a necessity when they introduced every Roman citizens right to a fair trial.

Outside a court of law, I don't understand why we bother to discuss this. Who cares if we have free will or not?

 

[untermensche]

You are still doing it, still repeating your fallacy...still making out that because something is not understood - how a brain forms conscious mind - that nothing is understood.

Something is understood. It is understood that chemical and physical changes to the brain alter consciousness, alter cognition, alter perception, alter mood, alter emotions...and that these can even be stimulated by applying current to specific parts of the brain, generating fear on demand, generating anger, etc, etc, which means that mind/consciousness is a physical activity, that it is the physical activity of a brain that generates this phenomena, even if we don't know how.

That is what you conveniently brush aside, ignoring all evidence, dismissing all research because you don't like it, because it doesn't suit your needs.

You claim to understand how something works (the mind) without even knowing what it is.

You claim to know the limitations of something (the mind) without even knowing what it is.

That is impossible. Your claims are not possible based on the things you do not understand.

It is true the evidence suggests some association between the mind and the brain.

But getting dunk and having a change in consciousness tells you nothing about what the consciousness, the active mind, can do.

You don't know what the mind is or what it can do.

Any claims to the contrary are lies.

 

[WAB]

Probably 70% of my posts were made in the philosophy fora back in the day, and the greater portion of those were on free will. I am desperately trying to use my free will to stay out of this thread...trying really hard...

...




...




Dammit! My free will didn't work!

 

[Underseer]

Software does not "make" choices.

Yes, it does.

It has alternative paths that have already been built.

So do human brains.

It can't do something it wasn't programmed to do.

Neither can humans.

It can't create a new idea.

We can both argue that humans don't and that AI does. Take it either way as you please.

It may be able to doodle.

So might you.

- - - Updated - - -

You are still doing it, still repeating your fallacy...still making out that because something is not understood - how a brain forms conscious mind - that nothing is understood.

Something is understood. It is understood that chemical and physical changes to the brain alter consciousness, alter cognition, alter perception, alter mood, alter emotions...and that these can even be stimulated by applying current to specific parts of the brain, generating fear on demand, generating anger, etc, etc, which means that mind/consciousness is a physical activity, that it is the physical activity of a brain that generates this phenomena, even if we don't know how.

That is what you conveniently brush aside, ignoring all evidence, dismissing all research because you don't like it, because it doesn't suit your needs.

You claim to understand how something works (the mind) without even knowing what it is.

You claim to know the limitations of something (the mind) without even knowing what it is.

That is impossible. Your claims are not possible based on the things you do not understand.

It is true the evidence suggests some association between the mind and the brain.

But getting dunk and having a change in consciousness tells you nothing about what the consciousness, the active mind, can do.

You don't know what the mind is or what it can do.

Any claims to the contrary are lies.

MAGIC IS REAL BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THINGS, AND IF YOU TRY TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME, I WILL REFUSE TO LISTEN!!!!!!! [/satire]

 

[Underseer]

I just thought I'd add that the Western fixation with free will is a result of Roman jurisprudence, inherited by Christianity. But they didn't necessarily believe in free will. It was a compromise they made in order to make their criminal trials quicker. Which was a necessity when they introduced every Roman citizens right to a fair trial.

Outside a court of law, I don't understand why we bother to discuss this. Who cares if we have free will or not?

Free will doesn't matter in the slightest.

We can make decisions with and without free will.

With or without free will, spending time thinking about a decision before making it can improve the quality of the decision you make.

Free will is just a magic MacGuffin used to drive argument from ignorance fallacies in favor of substance dualism.

 

[fast]

Probably 70% of my posts were made in the philosophy fora back in the day, and the greater portion of those were on free will. I am desperately trying to use my free will to stay out of this thread...trying really hard...

...




...




Dammit! My free will didn't work!

Oh that. That's something different. That's will power. Curious little booger. Can't find mine to save my life sometimes, lol.

 

[untermensche]

It has alternative paths that have already been built.

Yes, it does.

So if I choose vanilla over chocolate what preexisting pathway have I used?

Please be specific, my knowledge of neural anatomy is very good.

It can't do something it wasn't programmed to do.

So do human brains.

There is no evidence of any programming in the brain.

What motivates the brain to do what it does is completely unknown.

It can't create a new idea.

We can both argue that humans don't and that AI does. Take it either way as you please.

No we can't.

All of AI is an extension of the human mind. That is all we can agree on.

You don't have the slightest clue what the human mind is, how it works objectively, or what it is capable of doing to parts of the brain.

Your ignorance of the mind objectively is ABSOLUTE.

MAGIC IS REAL BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THINGS, AND IF YOU TRY TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME, I WILL REFUSE TO LISTEN!!!!!!! [/satire]

This is an insane non sequitur.

I don't think the mind is magic.

I don't think the way the mind has a feedback influence on the brain is magic.

It simply is not understood.

The mind is not understood objectively by anyone.

 

[untermensche]

Probably 70% of my posts were made in the philosophy fora back in the day, and the greater portion of those were on free will. I am desperately trying to use my free will to stay out of this thread...trying really hard...

...




...




Dammit! My free will didn't work!

Oh that. That's something different. That's will power. Curious little booger. Can't find mine to save my life sometimes, lol.

Yes, will power.

The will has the power to influence choices.

In some it is strong in others weak.

Just like muscles.

 

[DBT]

You are still doing it, still repeating your fallacy...still making out that because something is not understood - how a brain forms conscious mind - that nothing is understood.

Something is understood. It is understood that chemical and physical changes to the brain alter consciousness, alter cognition, alter perception, alter mood, alter emotions...and that these can even be stimulated by applying current to specific parts of the brain, generating fear on demand, generating anger, etc, etc, which means that mind/consciousness is a physical activity, that it is the physical activity of a brain that generates this phenomena, even if we don't know how.

That is what you conveniently brush aside, ignoring all evidence, dismissing all research because you don't like it, because it doesn't suit your needs.

You claim to understand how something works (the mind) without even knowing what it is.

You claim to know the limitations of something (the mind) without even knowing what it is.

That is impossible. Your claims are not possible based on the things you do not understand.

It is true the evidence suggests some association between the mind and the brain.

But getting dunk and having a change in consciousness tells you nothing about what the consciousness, the active mind, can do.

You don't know what the mind is or what it can do.

Any claims to the contrary are lies.

You are just repeating the same lines while ignoring what I was pointing out....just because something is not understood does not mean that nothing is understood.

Why don't you address what I said?

Again;
It is understood that chemical and physical changes to the brain alters consciousness, alters cognition, alters perception, alters mood, alters emotions...and that these can even be stimulated by applying current to specific parts of the brain, generating fear on demand, generating anger, etc, etc, which means that mind/consciousness is a physical activity, that it is the physical activity of a brain that generates this phenomena, even if we don't know how.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody is claiming nothing is uderstood.

What I said is there is no objective understanding of what the mind is or how it interacts with the brain.

Your objection is a strawman.

There is a lot known about brain anatomy and physiology.

But there is no objective understanding of the mind.

All we know is that mind is what we are, not brain.

 

[OLDMAN]

Nobody is claiming nothing is uderstood.

What I said is there is no objective understanding of what the mind is or how it interacts with the brain.

Your objection is a strawman.

There is a lot known about brain anatomy and physiology.

But there is no objective understanding of the mind.

All we know is that mind is what we are, not brain.

But you can have a brain without mind, you can't have a mind without the brain...if you are hurt badly enough the brain shuts down the mind and keeps the heart and lungs going. Because you are not as important in those circumstances.

 

[DBT]

Nobody is claiming nothing is uderstood.

You are claiming that there is ''no objective understanding of the mind'' - which is not true - the mind has some sort of autonomous control over the brain, which is also not true according to the evidence we have.

What I said is there is no objective understanding of what the mind is or how it interacts with the brain.

Yes, a false claim. False because we are able to objectively effect the mind by altering brain chemistry or electrical activity. We are able to stop conscious activity of the brain at any time, patients are routinely put to sleep for operations, induced coma's etc, etc,

That is an objective effect on the mind, the person is put to sleep, conscious mind is put to sleep.

Your objection is a strawman.

That's clearly you, for the reasons already described, misrepresentation of what I have said, false claims and so on...

There is a lot known about brain anatomy and physiology.

But there is no objective understanding of the mind.

All we know is that mind is what we are, not brain.

A lot is known about the effects of physiology, brain chemistry and neural architecture, in relation to consciousness/mind. That is what you ignore.

 

[untermensche]

You are claiming that there is ''no objective understanding of the mind'' - which is not true - the mind has some sort of autonomous control over the brain, which is also not true according to the evidence we have.



Yes, a false claim. False because we are able to objectively effect the mind by altering brain chemistry or electrical activity. We are able to stop conscious activity of the brain at any time, patients are routinely put to sleep for operations, induced coma's etc, etc,

That is an objective effect on the mind, the person is put to sleep, conscious mind is put to sleep.

Your objection is a strawman.

That's clearly you, for the reasons already described, misrepresentation of what I have said, false claims and so on...

There is a lot known about brain anatomy and physiology.

But there is no objective understanding of the mind.

All we know is that mind is what we are, not brain.

A lot is known about the effects of physiology, brain chemistry and neural architecture, in relation to consciousness/mind. That is what you ignore.

Yes. Alcohol changes the mind.

You don't know what the mind is.

But you know alcohol changes it.

Too bad knowing that alcohol changes the mind does not tell you what the mind is or how the brain creates the mind or how the mind can influence the brain.

Too bad you have no understanding of what the mind is.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody is claiming nothing is uderstood.

What I said is there is no objective understanding of what the mind is or how it interacts with the brain.

Your objection is a strawman.

There is a lot known about brain anatomy and physiology.

But there is no objective understanding of the mind.

All we know is that mind is what we are, not brain.

But you can have a brain without mind, you can't have a mind without the brain...if you are hurt badly enough the brain shuts down the mind and keeps the heart and lungs going. Because you are not as important in those circumstances.

The issue is what exactly the mind is.

Knowing the brain can be altered with drugs and therefore the mind altered tells you absolutely nothing about what the mind is or how it causes the brain to move the arm or how the mind makes any choice.

 

[OLDMAN]

Nobody is claiming nothing is uderstood.

What I said is there is no objective understanding of what the mind is or how it interacts with the brain.

Your objection is a strawman.

There is a lot known about brain anatomy and physiology.

But there is no objective understanding of the mind.

All we know is that mind is what we are, not brain.

But you can have a brain without mind, you can't have a mind without the brain...if you are hurt badly enough the brain shuts down the mind and keeps the heart and lungs going. Because you are not as important in those circumstances.

The issue is what exactly the mind is.

Knowing the brain can be altered with drugs and therefore the mind altered tells you absolutely nothing about what the mind is or how it causes the brain to move the arm or how the mind makes any choice.

You are just making an appeal to ignorance argument. You don't even try to address all the issues that have been raised pointing to the mind being a derivative of the brain. Functioning in perfect conjunction with all the processes of the organ.

 

[untermensche]

No.

It is not an appeal from ignorance.

I am not ignorant of my mind and what I can do with it.

I can use it to move my arm at will.

I used it to form these sentences.

What is happening here is two active minds are using a body and a computer to communicate.

 

[DBT]

You are claiming that there is ''no objective understanding of the mind'' - which is not true - the mind has some sort of autonomous control over the brain, which is also not true according to the evidence we have.



Yes, a false claim. False because we are able to objectively effect the mind by altering brain chemistry or electrical activity. We are able to stop conscious activity of the brain at any time, patients are routinely put to sleep for operations, induced coma's etc, etc,

That is an objective effect on the mind, the person is put to sleep, conscious mind is put to sleep.



That's clearly you, for the reasons already described, misrepresentation of what I have said, false claims and so on...



A lot is known about the effects of physiology, brain chemistry and neural architecture, in relation to consciousness/mind. That is what you ignore.

Yes. Alcohol changes the mind.

You don't know what the mind is.

But you know alcohol changes it.

Too bad knowing that alcohol changes the mind does not tell you what the mind is or how the brain creates the mind or how the mind can influence the brain.

Too bad you have no understanding of what the mind is.

We know the mind is only active in relation to electrochemical brain activity.

We know of no case of 'mind activity' - thoughts, etc - without electrochemical brain activity.

There is not one instance of a mind operating without an active brain generating electrochemical brain activity, not ever.

Chemistry alters mind.

Electrical activity alters mind

Mind is most likely a physical activity of a brain.

There is no evidence to support autonomy of mind over brain.

The mind is what the brain is doing.

The state of a mind is a reflection of the state and condition of a brain.

 

[untermensche]

We know the mind is only active in relation to electrochemical brain activity.

We think that some kind of activity that is going on in the brain gives rise to the mind.

We use our mind to conclude this not any instrument.

We have no clue what specific activity is giving rise to the mind. We cannot replicate or even model it in any way.

Therefore we have no clue what the mind is.

You are making claims from total ignorance.

You have no clue what the mind is.

You have no clue how the mind can effect the brain.

PERIOD!!!