What is the actual free will humans have?

[Speakpigeon]

Ah, but actually what we do at some level is the only way to consider whether will is free or no. At the most reduced level that is true. If it be some sort of chemical activity, neuronal activity, or other relation between the way things were at time t defines whether what happens thereafter is with our without outside cause. So it is like I wrote "prove cause and I will prove lack of free will".

You're missing the point of this, as so often, you poor soul.

We're discussing our conceptions of free will, not whether we can prove it exists or not.

There's no point whatsoever discussing proof if we don't even agree on whatever it is we could try to prove.

Time to catch up.
EB

 

[DBT]

Will is not being formed by conscious will. Will, having no control or awareness of the means of its own formation/production cannot be defined as free.

The distinction between will and freedom of action was made a long time ago.


''We can do as we will, but we cannot will as we will'' - Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[Speakpigeon]

As to the rest:

If we had the opportunity to take a step back in time, then given only the information we had at the time and given the circumstance at the time, could we in fact have been able to make an alternative choice? Personally, I think yes, but the hard determinist says no because they hold that we live in a clock like universe where every event (both on the macro and micro level) were determined such that no event is a contingent event; thus to them, every event whether mental or otherwise is a necessary event. That's what gives rise to the notion that free will is an illusion.

Sure, but I'd be comfortable with 'hard determinism' being proved true. And, if proved true, I would still maintain we possess free will (or at least, that I possess free will).

By free will, I mean whatever it is I experience every day of my life in terms of my ability to make choices as to what I do. The reality of this kind of free will cannot be disputed anymore than the reality of my experience, again and again, of particular colours, of pain, or of joy, as the case may be.

Anyway, I think I'm starting to see how at least one poll about free will could look like.

So, we disagree, but thanks.
EB

 

[DBT]

Conscious will and decision making are separate and distinct features of the cognitive process. Nobody denies the brain the ability to process information and select options from a set of realizable alternatives on the basis of a set of selection criteria, but is the ability to make decisions an example of free will...no it is not. It is information processing using selection criteria, decision making, not performed by conscious will, hence certainly not an instance of 'free' will.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The distinction between will and freedom of action was made a long time ago.
''We can do as we will, but we cannot will as we will'' - Arthur Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer only expressed what's been humanity's common usage for millennia, if very elegantly.

He wrote The World as Will and Representation in 1818, which sounds very late in the day to me, in historical terms.

Our ordinary notions of will and freedom have been in existence since humans first used these two words, so way before Schopenhauer could suck wisdom at the teat of his nurse.

Think of the God of the Bible. It would make no sense for the almighty God of the Jews and Christians to warn man he is responsible of his actions if he was not also given not just freedom but also free will.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

If I want to speed and there's a speed limit, I can still exercise my free will by speeding beyond the limit.

I will respond to the remainder later, but while I have a moment, I want to express my disagreement.

Remember, my definition is from a compatibilist perspective, and as such, compulsion plays a critical role. It may indeed sidestep the original problem, but because there is a speed limit, there is a pressure in place that goes against freely doing what I want. Yes, in this instance, we have the ability to overcome the pressure and speed anyway, just as a high jack victim can overcome the pressure of the high jackers demands, but the pressure itself is still a compelling force, so when I drive the speed limit, I am constrained (and thus compelled) to do so. When I overcome the constraining pressure, I am not not doing as I please in the absence of compulsion.

But this is confusing free will with freedom.

You think people living under some crackpot dictator should be said to be deprived of their free will?! That's definitely not the usual way we would describe the situation.

If there's a constraint, it's certainly going to affect your actions but you still retain your ability to make a choice, between either doing what you like, even at some cost for yourself because of the constraint, or not doing something you would have liked doing. In the latter case, you may not like what you're going to do but it's still the case that it's what you want to do because it's your decision to do it, hence free will even in this case.

Free will is a property of very nearly all human beings. What we all can very easily be deprived of is freedom. Our freedom can be removed by the smallest constraint, like getting a ticket for letting our dog foul the pavement. But even a prisoner in the darkest cachot in the most dire dictatorship retains his free will.
EB

Remind me what definition of free will you're using?

It can't be anywhere near the same as mine.

 

[DBT]

The distinction between will and freedom of action was made a long time ago.
''We can do as we will, but we cannot will as we will'' - Arthur Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer only expressed what's been humanity's common usage for millennia, if very elegantly.

He wrote The World as Will and Representation in 1818, which sounds very late in the day to me, in historical terms.

Our ordinary notions of will and freedom have been in existence since humans first used these two words, so way before Schopenhauer could suck wisdom at the teat of his nurse.

Think of the God of the Bible. It would make no sense for the almighty God of the Jews and Christians to warn man he is responsible of his actions if he was not also given not just freedom but also free will.
EB

Responsibility for one's actions ultimately rests on the assumption of a rational brain generating reasonable socially adaptive decisions/selections (not being an example of free will for the given reason) and behaviours.

That is not always the case. Not because of the presence or absence of will, or in relation to the concept of free will, but simply due to the state of the brain. Hence extenuating circumstances, impaired responsibility, etc

 

[fromderinside]

Ah, but actually what we do at some level is the only way to consider whether will is free or no. At the most reduced level that is true. If it be some sort of chemical activity, neuronal activity, or other relation between the way things were at time t defines whether what happens thereafter is with our without outside cause. So it is like I wrote "prove cause and I will prove lack of free will".

You're missing the point of this, as so often, you poor soul.

We're discussing our conceptions of free will, not whether we can prove it exists or not.

There's no point whatsoever discussing proof if we don't even agree on whatever it is we could try to prove.

Time to catch up.
EB

My conception of free will is wrapped up in my challenge to it's being. Implicit in my point is a challenge to meaningful existence of a thing directing behavior, free will, independent of coercion. So one could say, If one weren't so wrapped up on scoring 'points', that one's notion of free will - will defined objectively with a meaningful, operational, specification - depends on our ability to specify it's possible falsification.

There is no need to discuss something's tissue is made up of appeals to ignorance or by claims of phenomenal self evidence. If you want to increase sentence size with definitions unattached to anything real by inserting 'free will' into the sentence with the rest of the wrapper pointing to those two words as definition. A thing may be a thing but a thing's definition is not defined by unsupported thingness..

 

[fast]

As to the rest:

If we had the opportunity to take a step back in time, then given only the information we had at the time and given the circumstance at the time, could we in fact have been able to make an alternative choice? Personally, I think yes, but the hard determinist says no because they hold that we live in a clock like universe where every event (both on the macro and micro level) were determined such that no event is a contingent event; thus to them, every event whether mental or otherwise is a necessary event. That's what gives rise to the notion that free will is an illusion.

Sure, but I'd be comfortable with 'hard determinism' being proved true. And, if proved true, I would still maintain we possess free will (or at least, that I possess free will).

By free will, I mean whatever it is I experience every day of my life in terms of my ability to make choices as to what I do. The reality of this kind of free will cannot be disputed anymore than the reality of my experience, again and again, of particular colours, of pain, or of joy, as the case may be.

Anyway, I think I'm starting to see how at least one poll about free will could look like.

So, we disagree, but thanks.
EB

How could you be comfortable with hard determinism? Even the choices you make not under the threat of compulsion must be the choices you'll make. Imagine watching a movie where someone chooses of their own free will to pick chocolate as their flavor of ice cream. In one sense, you are acting of your own free will since you are not being compelled to make the choice you will, but the darkness of this scenario is that every time we rewind the movie and watch it again, the very same choice is being made, time and time again. What's the point of free will if the choices you make freely must be the choices you'll make? If everything is fated with clockwork precision, then sure, I could then sympathize with the notion free will is an illusion, and if it's not an illusion under the compatibilist perspective, then it's a free will not worth a grain of salt since no room is given for alternative paths.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Remind me what definition of free will you're using?

I'm looking for one.

It can't be anywhere near the same as mine.

Ok, so, now, you would need to explain what's wrong with my view.

Or to tell us what your definition is and explain why it is.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

My conception of free will is wrapped up in my challenge to it's being. Implicit in my point is a challenge to meaningful existence of a thing directing behavior, free will, independent of coercion. So one could say, If one weren't so wrapped up on scoring 'points', that one's notion of free will - will defined objectively with a meaningful, operational, specification - depends on our ability to specify it's possible falsification.

There is no need to discuss something's tissue is made up of appeals to ignorance or by claims of phenomenal self evidence. If you want to increase sentence size with definitions unattached to anything real by inserting 'free will' into the sentence with the rest of the wrapper pointing to those two words as definition. A thing may be a thing but a thing's definition is not defined by unsupported thingness..

We're discussing our conceptions of free-will. Do you have one?

And what is it you're criticising exactly here? My conception of free will? Can you tell me what my conception of free-will is? I'd be interested.

Short of that, you could start your own thread on whatever it is you're deluded into believing you're interested in.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

but simply due to the state of the brain

Sure, but I don't have the necessary equipment to look into my own brain, let alone those of other people.

And humanity would just crash if it was suddenly required to use scientific criteria for everything we choose to do in life.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

Remind me what definition of free will you're using?

I'm looking for one.

It can't be anywhere near the same as mine.

Ok, so, now, you would need to explain what's wrong with my view.

Or to tell us what your definition is and explain why it is.
EB

For my definition, you can use either the one I offered on behalf of myself, or the adapted Cashmore one. They're both listed in post 57.

As to yours......it's just that here:

If there's a constraint, it's certainly going to affect your actions but you still retain your ability to make a choice, between either doing what you like, even at some cost for yourself because of the constraint, or not doing something you would have liked doing. In the latter case, you may not like what you're going to do but it's still the case that it's what you want to do because it's your decision to do it, hence free will even in this case.

Free will is a property of very nearly all human beings.....

....you appear to be assuming free will. I was wondering if knowing your definition might help me to understand why.

 

[untermensche]

..I'd say there is insufficient data to say for certain if the universe began or always existed..

The data points to a beginning.

What would the data for "always existed" be?

How would any data point to that conclusion?

It is an assumption based on no data and no possible data.

A complete figment of the imagination.

what data?

Look up Big Bang.

- - - Updated - - -

but simply due to the state of the brain

Sure, but I don't have the necessary equipment to look into my own brain, let alone those of other people.

And humanity would just crash if it was suddenly required to use scientific criteria for everything we choose to do in life.
EB

The term "state of brain" is a meaningless filler.

It is ignorance masking as knowledge.

It is self delusion.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How could you be comfortable with hard determinism? Even the choices you make not under the threat of compulsion must be the choices you'll make. Imagine watching a movie where someone chooses of their own free will to pick chocolate as their flavor of ice cream. In one sense, you are acting of your own free will since you are not being compelled to make the choice you will, but the darkness of this scenario is that every time we rewind the movie and watch it again, the very same choice is being made, time and time again. What's the point of free will if the choices you make freely must be the choices you'll make? If everything is fated with clockwork precision, then sure, I could then sympathize with the notion free will is an illusion, and if it's not an illusion under the compatibilist perspective, then it's a free will not worth a grain of salt since no room is given for alternative paths.

First, I'm comfortable with the idea that hard determinism may be true but I don't actually know it is.

Second, historically, humans came up with the notion of free will well before they could go to cinemas and experience anything even remotely like what you're describing here. So, me, I doubt very much our notion of free will requires that we should be able to choose differently each time we would be somehow allowed to go through the same moment again.

This idea, I think, assumes you would magically have in mind the choice you made on the previous occasion! If so, sure, you'd have some good reasons to change your mind, but that wouldn't be fairplay.

This idea of replay brings to my mind the fact of our ability to replay the 'film' of past events, I suppose to try and see how we could have done differently. And here we do know how it went in reality, and so we are necessarily a different person and are able to come up with a different course of action.

Or, your idea assumes that our choice of action is effectively made independently of the real world. And that is just absurd since it implies that our choices are not essentially based on the situation we're currently in! That's definitely not what I experience when exercising my free will. It's not what underlies our sense of free will, the same sense of free will that humans must have always experienced.

So, I can only assume your conception of free will is probably somehow heavily influenced by the metaphysics of our Christian culture, or that sort of thing.

You're not free to think your own ideas here.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

For my definition, you can use either the one I offered on behalf of myself, or the adapted Cashmore one. They're both listed in post 57.

Right, of course! Sorry for that.

Here it is:

Traditional free will is the capacity to freely and willingly (ie with will) choose to do otherwise in the same situation (ruby sparks)

So, you're in the same gang as fast.

It could have been worse.

And where did you provide a proper justification for it?

As to yours......it's just that here:

If there's a constraint, it's certainly going to affect your actions but you still retain your ability to make a choice, between either doing what you like, even at some cost for yourself because of the constraint, or not doing something you would have liked doing. In the latter case, you may not like what you're going to do but it's still the case that it's what you want to do because it's your decision to do it, hence free will even in this case.

Free will is a property of very nearly all human beings.....

That's no definition. It's an occurrence of thinking aloud on free will.

....you appear to be assuming free will. I was wondering if knowing your definition might help me to understand why.

I'm not sure what you mean by "assuming free will". If you mean that I assume most of us have free will most of the time, that's true and it seems pretty obvious to me. In effect, we use our free will even for the most trivial things in life, like eating yet another one of those delicious truffles, or going to the loo.

As to my definition, I still don't have one. I thought this thread would help me settle on one.

The dictionary definition I provided initially, i.e. the human ability to make choices that are not externally determined, can be understood so as to be in line with my conception of free will but not explicit enough to be so understood by most people, I think.

I have another dictionary with this very different definition: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate. And this is exactly the kind the conception of free will influenced by Christian culture that so many people can't help parroting.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

So, you're in the same gang as fast.

It could have been worse.

I'm not sure I am in what you might call fast's gang, or the fast lane if that's punnier.

From what I can gather, fast seems to consider compatibilist free will not worth much. He or she can correct me on that If I'm wrong. Personally, I don't like the use of the term free will, even by compatibilists. I prefer to talk about degrees of freedom or degrees of agency. It's a bugbear I have about naming in this case. The degrees of freedom we appear to have under compatibilism are worth a LOT, imo. I just wouldn't particularly be keen on calling them free will.

And where did you provide a proper justification for it?

I thought I had? maybe I hadn't. In a way, I can't provide a justification FOR it because I don't think it actually exists. My justification against it is that it involves (or would involve if it existed) us being able to step outside the causal chain which operates under what we know of the laws of physics. The exception to this would be randomness, but that doesn't give free will.

To illustrate, you say we can choose. I agree. But, we can't choose what we want to choose. It's a regress thing. Pick any example of any decision or choice you've ever made and the regress can be applied to it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "assuming free will". If you mean that I assume most of us have free will most of the time, that's true and it seems pretty obvious to me. In effect, we use our free will even for the most trivial things in life, like eating yet another one of those delicious truffles, or going to the loo.

Yes, that's pretty much what i meant by assuming,

As to my definition, I still don't have one. I thought this thread would help me settle on one.

Fair enough. None of us know for sure in any case. Neuroscience and psychology and other Applied Philosophies can give clues, that's all. Unapplied Philosophy (pure reasoning) is useful too.

 

[ruby sparks]

As to the rest:

If we had the opportunity to take a step back in time, then given only the information we had at the time and given the circumstance at the time, could we in fact have been able to make an alternative choice? Personally, I think yes, but the hard determinist says no because they hold that we live in a clock like universe where every event (both on the macro and micro level) were determined such that no event is a contingent event; thus to them, every event whether mental or otherwise is a necessary event. That's what gives rise to the notion that free will is an illusion.

Sure, but I'd be comfortable with 'hard determinism' being proved true. And, if proved true, I would still maintain we possess free will (or at least, that I possess free will).

By free will, I mean whatever it is I experience every day of my life in terms of my ability to make choices as to what I do. The reality of this kind of free will cannot be disputed anymore than the reality of my experience, again and again, of particular colours, of pain, or of joy, as the case may be.

Anyway, I think I'm starting to see how at least one poll about free will could look like.

So, we disagree, but thanks.
EB

How could you be comfortable with hard determinism? Even the choices you make not under the threat of compulsion must be the choices you'll make. Imagine watching a movie where someone chooses of their own free will to pick chocolate as their flavor of ice cream. In one sense, you are acting of your own free will since you are not being compelled to make the choice you will, but the darkness of this scenario is that every time we rewind the movie and watch it again, the very same choice is being made, time and time again. What's the point of free will if the choices you make freely must be the choices you'll make? If everything is fated with clockwork precision, then sure, I could then sympathize with the notion free will is an illusion, and if it's not an illusion under the compatibilist perspective, then it's a free will not worth a grain of salt since no room is given for alternative paths.

The way I look at it (and I admit my position has softened over time) is that while we couldn't freely choose to do differently in exactly the same circumstances, we can choose (not completely freely) to do differently in different circumstances. This may not be free will as commonly conceived but it's not a bag of shite either. One might even say that it's almost unique, as a capacity. I say that without being an expert on the cognition of animals other than us.

We appear to be assisted in this partly-free capacity by the ability to forward-model (imagine, deliberate) alternative possible options, i.e. to step out of the moment (backwards and forwards) in a virtual way. I don't mean that we always deliberate (at least not in consciousness, and non-conscious deliberation may be an oxymoron in any case) because I think a heck of a lot of our decision-making processes, even the ones where consciousness plays some part, are non-conscious. Many, I think are completely non-conscious. I don't think this is controversial. In such cases we can, at times, consciously confabulate reasons post-hoc. But I would distinguish this from forward-planning deliberations, which are not necessarily post-hoc, even if they are not freely willed.

 

[fromderinside]

My conception of free will is wrapped up in my challenge to it's being. Implicit in my point is a challenge to meaningful existence of a thing directing behavior, free will, independent of coercion. So one could say, If one weren't so wrapped up on scoring 'points', that one's notion of free will - will defined objectively with a meaningful, operational, specification - depends on our ability to specify it's possible falsification.

There is no need to discuss something's tissue is made up of appeals to ignorance or by claims of phenomenal self evidence. If you want to increase sentence size with definitions unattached to anything real by inserting 'free will' into the sentence with the rest of the wrapper pointing to those two words as definition. A thing may be a thing but a thing's definition is not defined by unsupported thingness..

We're discussing our conceptions of free-will. Do you have one?

And what is it you're criticising exactly here? My conception of free will? Can you tell me what my conception of free-will is? I'd be interested.

Short of that, you could start your own thread on whatever it is you're deluded into believing you're interested in.
EB

Yes we are and my conception of free will presented again for those challenged in using oparations to construct testable concepts is "Implicit in my point is a challenge to meaningful existence of a thing directing behavior, free will, independent of coercion. So one could say, If one weren't so wrapped up on scoring 'points', that one's notion of free will - will defined objectively with a meaningful, operational, specification - depends on our ability to specify it's possible falsification".Or if you like: "Free will would be meaningful existence of a thing directing behavior, free will, independent of coercion".

I visualize that thing as a general capability. Ergo to demonstrate free will one needs to falsify possible coercion that that thing directs behavior. Three things to verify free will: exists, is a thing, actually freely decides behavior. As to whether free will is a capability of consciousness, or, can exist independent from it is a second level consideration. Of course that presumes one has already shown that consciousness actually exists.

This leaves the entire character of how it exists, in what form it exists, why it exists, etc. open for discussion and ridicule. MY construction has the beauty of forcing one to consider realizability, proving function, etc.

Why I had to drive all this way just to get something on board is exasperating to say the least.

 

[none]

The data points to a beginning.

What would the data for "always existed" be?

How would any data point to that conclusion?

It is an assumption based on no data and no possible data.

A complete figment of the imagination.

what data?

Look up Big Bang

there is evidence of expansion but you don't understand that is not evidence of either an eternal or beginning of the universe
it's pointless to engage you because you don't understand your folly that you think you have an understanding which you do not
the big bang is about expansion not about origin
you just don't understand how unfounded your claims are and you are absolutely rabid in your unfounded understanding