What is the actual free will humans have?

[Speakpigeon]

So, for now, we have three competing formal expressions of free will:

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

The human ability to make choices that are not externally determined (Speakpigeon)

The ability to do what one wants without compulsion (fast).

Anybody else?
EB

 

[rousseau]

Let's forget people's definitions, let's look at the actual definitions of the words:

will - the act, process, or experience of willing

willing - of or relating to the will or power of choosing

free - not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being

free will - of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being

We choose, and by definition could not have chosen any other way, but we are free to make a choice.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[ruby sparks]

So, for now, we have three competing formal expressions of free will:

The ability to do what one wants without compulsion (fast).

Anybody else?
EB

He's not a member as far as I know but Biologist Anthony Cashmore's definition is:

"a belief that there is a component to biological behavior that is something more than the unavoidable consequences of the genetic and environmental history of the individual and the possible stochastic laws of nature"

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, for now, we have four competing formal expressions of free will:

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

The human ability to make choices that are not externally determined (Speakpigeon)

The ability to do what one wants without compulsion (fast).

of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being (rousseau)

Anybody else?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

"a belief that there is a component to biological behavior that is something more than the unavoidable consequences of the genetic and environmental history of the individual and the possible stochastic laws of nature"

Interesting but not a definition.

Rather, it's a comment on what this guy thinks is the notion of free will people have.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

"a belief that there is a component to biological behavior that is something more than the unavoidable consequences of the genetic and environmental history of the individual and the possible stochastic laws of nature"

Interesting but not a definition.

Rather, it's a comment on what this guy thinks is the notion of free will people have.
EB

No. It's a definition. You may disagree with it and say that it is or isn't what people think, but it's still a definition of free will in the 1st instance. Specifically it says free will is a belief. Others would use the word illusion. It may or may not be what this or that person thinks free will is, but that goes for all the definitions.

ps I don't mind if you list it or not, if you're only canvasing for definitions from members.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No. It's a definition. You may disagree with it and say that it is or isn't what people think, but it's still a definition of free will in the 1st instance. Specifically it says free will is a belief. Others would use the word illusion.

Again, I'm interested in definitions of whatever it is that most people think of as free will. The comment in question doesn't fit.

Here is a rewording that might be acceptable to this guy:

Free will is what makes human behavior go beyond the unavoidable consequences of the genetic and environmental history of the individual and the possible stochastic laws of nature

It still disagree that it's what most people believe but at least it fits the format.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

Here is a rewording that might be acceptable to this guy:

Free will is what makes human behavior go beyond the unavoidable consequences of the genetic and environmental history of the individual and the possible stochastic laws of nature

Hm. I hate to be pedantic, but I think your formulation assumes there is such a thing. How about free will is what would allow human behaviour to go beyond...

No. Retract that. It could be applied to all of them, including mine. Whoops.

 

[rousseau]

So, for now, we have four competing formal expressions of free will:

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

The human ability to make choices that are not externally determined (Speakpigeon)

The ability to do what one wants without compulsion (fast).

of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being (rousseau)

Anybody else?
EB

These all strike me as very similar definitions. Maybe we can converge them and paste the result at the top of this forum?

 

[rousseau]

Let's forget people's definitions, let's look at the actual definitions of the words:

will - the act, process, or experience of willing

willing - of or relating to the will or power of choosing

free - not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being

free will - of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being

We choose, and by definition could not have chosen any other way, but we are free to make a choice.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

One corollary of this definition that I just thought of, regarding the bolded.

In a society that imposes constraints on the individual, is our will actually free according to this definition?

So, updated definition of free-will:

of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being, within the constraints of environmental social structure

But wait! There's more. We are also confined by our physical ability as a human being. We can only do that which a human being can do, and we can only act insofar as our available energy will allow. So here we go again:

of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being, within the constraints of environmental social structure and biological ability

Ok, sorry to do it again, but something else comes to mind now. Epistemology. We can only do that which we know how to do.

of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being, within the constraints of environmental social structure and biological ability, as well as what the subject knows

Maybe an unnecessary addition to the definition, but perhaps useful information?

The corollary of my additions:

A freer society, more biological ability (wealth), and more knowledge makes the subject more free.

 

[OLDMAN]

One corollary of this definition that I just thought of, regarding the bolded.

In a society that imposes constraints on the individual, is our will actually free according to this definition?

So, updated definition of free-will:



But wait! There's more. We are also confined by our physical ability as a human being. We can only do that which a human being can do, and we can only act insofar as our available energy will allow. So here we go again:

of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being, within the constraints of environmental social structure and biological ability

Ok, sorry to do it again, but something else comes to mind now. Epistemology. We can only do that which we know how to do.

of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being, within the constraints of environmental social structure and biological ability, as well as what the subject knows

Maybe an unnecessary addition to the definition, but perhaps useful information?

The corollary of my additions:

A freer society, more biological ability (wealth), and more knowledge makes the subject more free.

Right, Harris states.."You cannot know something you do not know anymore than you can unknow what you know. I think the simplest creatures move of their own accord, but their ability to choose vs react moment to moment on instinct gives the illusion of free will. Clearly they do not have the ability to reason out their choices, yet the illusion is complete.

 

[rousseau]

One corollary of this definition that I just thought of, regarding the bolded.

In a society that imposes constraints on the individual, is our will actually free according to this definition?

So, updated definition of free-will:



But wait! There's more. We are also confined by our physical ability as a human being. We can only do that which a human being can do, and we can only act insofar as our available energy will allow. So here we go again:



Ok, sorry to do it again, but something else comes to mind now. Epistemology. We can only do that which we know how to do.

of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being, within the constraints of environmental social structure and biological ability, as well as what the subject knows

Maybe an unnecessary addition to the definition, but perhaps useful information?

The corollary of my additions:

A freer society, more biological ability (wealth), and more knowledge makes the subject more free.

Right, Harris states.."You cannot know something you do not know anymore than you can unknow what you know. I think the simplest creatures move of their own accord, but their ability to choose vs react moment to moment on instinct gives the illusion of free will. Clearly they do not have the ability to reason out their choices, yet the illusion is complete.

Free will vs Limited Will.

Is a lizard conscious? Is a cat conscious? Is a 3 year old human conscious?

Certainly, there is an experiencer present, but the experience is limited by the mind's content.

This is why I dislike when really smart people talk of 'automata'. If one human being is an automata, we all are. If lizards are automata, then we all are.

It's more accurate to say that humans have a will that is more free than that of a cat's.

 

[Speakpigeon]

ps I don't mind if you list it or not, if you're only canvasing for definitions from members.

I would rather have that of members, since they can at least argue their case.

I could still allow two or three from outsiders, including well-known thinkers, if the definition is unambiguous and straightforward so that there's no need to argue about it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

One corollary of this definition that I just thought of, regarding the bolded.

In a society that imposes constraints on the individual, is our will actually free according to this definition?

So, updated definition of free-will:



But wait! There's more. We are also confined by our physical ability as a human being. We can only do that which a human being can do, and we can only act insofar as our available energy will allow. So here we go again:

of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being, within the constraints of environmental social structure and biological ability

Ok, sorry to do it again, but something else comes to mind now. Epistemology. We can only do that which we know how to do.

of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being, within the constraints of environmental social structure and biological ability, as well as what the subject knows

Maybe an unnecessary addition to the definition, but perhaps useful information?

These additions are indeed entirely unnecessary.

They are effectively already covered by "not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being".
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, for now, we have five competing formal expressions of free will:

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

The human ability to make choices that are not externally determined (Speakpigeon adapted from Collins English Dictionary)

The ability to do what one wants without compulsion (fast)

Of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being (rousseau)

Free will is what makes human behavior go beyond the unavoidable consequences of the genetic and environmental history of the individual and the possible stochastic laws of nature (adapted from biologist A. Cashmore)

Anybody else?
EB

 

[DBT]

So, for now, we have four competing formal expressions of free will:

The ability to do what one wants without compulsion (fast).

of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being (rousseau)

Anybody else?
EB

Free will is the illusion of conscious agency when it is the underlying activity of the brain that is the agent of consciousness, decision making and related motor actions, thought and action, consequently the idea of free will itself is itself an illusion. We (functional brains) have decision making ability and we have conscious will, the perceived impulse or drive to act, neither ability qualifies as being free will.

Hence, Free will is an illusion of consciousness.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, for now, we have SIX competing formal expressions of free will:

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

The human ability to make choices that are not externally determined (adapted from Collins English Dictionary 1991)

The ability to do what one wants without compulsion (fast)

Of or relating to the will or power of choosing not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being (rousseau)

The idea of free will is of what would make human behavior go beyond the unavoidable consequences of the genetic and environmental history of the individual and the possible stochastic laws of nature (adapted from biologist A. Cashmore, plus correction to make it plain that he thinks such a free will could not exist)

Free will is the illusion of conscious agency when it is the underlying activity of the brain that is the agent of consciousness, decision making and related motor actions, thought and action (DBT)

Anybody else?
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybe an unnecessary addition to the definition, but perhaps useful information?

Isn't that the dilemma that comes with making definitions though? One could take the approach (and justify it) that one should include everything that something is, and arguably everything it isn't if one was being especially thorough, though a complete list of the former might obviate the need for the latter (though the Frame Problem suggests otherwise). Either way, it might be a very, very long list.

The other extreme is to whittle down to a minimal definition.

I think both can be argued to have their merits.

Anywhere in between is a sort of balancing act.

 

[ruby sparks]

One corollary of this definition that I just thought of, regarding the bolded.

In a society that imposes constraints on the individual, is our will actually free according to this definition?

So, updated definition of free-will:



But wait! There's more. We are also confined by our physical ability as a human being. We can only do that which a human being can do, and we can only act insofar as our available energy will allow. So here we go again:



Ok, sorry to do it again, but something else comes to mind now. Epistemology. We can only do that which we know how to do.



Maybe an unnecessary addition to the definition, but perhaps useful information?

The corollary of my additions:

A freer society, more biological ability (wealth), and more knowledge makes the subject more free.

Right, Harris states.."You cannot know something you do not know anymore than you can unknow what you know. I think the simplest creatures move of their own accord, but their ability to choose vs react moment to moment on instinct gives the illusion of free will. Clearly they do not have the ability to reason out their choices, yet the illusion is complete.

Free will vs Limited Will.

Is a lizard conscious? Is a cat conscious? Is a 3 year old human conscious?

Certainly, there is an experiencer present, but the experience is limited by the mind's content.

This is why I dislike when really smart people talk of 'automata'. If one human being is an automata, we all are. If lizards are automata, then we all are.

It's more accurate to say that humans have a will that is more free than that of a cat's.

I'm pretty good with that. Partially-free will. More degrees of freedom. More agency. Whatever.

I have reservations about using the bare term 'free will' for something that ultimately isn't, mainly because it seems to be at odds with and would likely be confused with what it is commonly believed to mean. I wouldn't readily rescue the word 'god' and use it to mean 'the natural universe' for similar reasons, even if it would, technically, mean that god exists.

The pros and cons of keeping or not keeping a term to define or describe something can be discussed. Daniel Dennett, for instance agrees that the commonly-held conception of free will is an illusion, but he wants to keep the name. He doesn't want to do the same for the word god, so I think he's inconsistent.

You could make a case for retaining both words (free will and god), on the basis that at some stage, if it is explained enough, people will eventually understand exactly what the words can or do mean to the user, in other words that the terms will lose their baggage. I don't see this happening for either any time soon, and so I prefer to change the terminology.

His motives are also....questionable (by me) in that he seems to want to keep the traditional word because bad things will happen if we tell people they don't have free will. This reminds me a bit of the idea that losing a belief in god will cause people to do bad things, or of a certain bishop's wife who, in 1860 so the story goes, upon learning that we are descended from apes said to her husband, '‘My dear, descended from the apes! Let us hope it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known."

I think what is most important, naming issues aside, is that we understand these things as being on a spectrum, not as a fixed binary 'have' and 'have not'.

Other phenomena might warrant this binary treatment. Perpetual motion for example. You can't, I don't think, usefully talk about partially perpetual. The word 'free', on its own, without the prefix 'complete', 'absolute' or 'total' does not seem to have to suffer from this restriction, imo.

 

[untermensche]

The freedom of the will is best expressed in the ideas we accept or reject after consideration.

Is choosing to not believe some story about the gods written 2000 years ago a reflex?

Or is it a free rational choice?