Destiny and Free will

[porch]

I may slip in to some rhetoric at times, but I am not at all befuddled, and this is no act.

Let me put it to you this way: I stopped believing in Free Will mostly because I could not answer my own challenge.

I may seem inconsistent, because I keep flip-flopping between philosophical rigour and vernacular speech (see my rant RE: the Sun), which, in the end, means I am making up the views of my opponents because they keep failing to provide their own. Bo-ring.


It's been fun making a series of posts like this, because I don't usually have significant blocks of free time for it. I usually just lurk, but this is one of my favourite topics. Maybe I am like many of the most fervent anti-smokers: an ex-smoker.

In any case, I am now going to huff some glue and lose consciousness. Maybe forever. Free at last, free at last!

 

[Manopolus]

The Sun revolves around the Earth. It sinks below us every night, and daily rises in the East, crosses over heads, then descends in the West for another loop. Wait. We know that that isn't really true! And yet, that is how we speak of the occurrence in everyday language, because it is absolutely true! As in, that is exactly what it appears to be from our perspective here on Earth. In that way, the geocentric model is "true"; it is useful to us as conceptual/linguistic construction. And so it is with Free Will. It is "true" only in that it's a useful tool for communication. We assume the existence of Free Will when we tell stories about ourselves and one another, because it is exactly how things appear on the surface, from our POV. And because it seems so obvious, the foundations of our languages have the concept ingrained. Even though the body generates the mind, we have to say, "My body", whereas of course, "body" should really be spoken of as the main character, and the ego, or what-have-you, should be in its possession, instead of the other way around. But "Body's i" just doesn't parse in English.

Now I am guilty of jumping the gun, because no proponent of Free Will has provided that coherent definition and/or risen to my challenge. I'm not the one asserting the existence of Free Will, so it's not my job. What are we even talking about, people?

Yep. Sure.

...and if you start with behavioralism as your premise, then determinism will be in your output. It comes directly from the premise. You had to ignore volition to study anything at all. That was a prerequisite.

And then we built all these systems on it. All these games. Except... the goal of the game is no longer to play as directed, but to cheat those systems. The systems only seem to work as advertised if they don't include humans. The ones that don't work just fine. The ones that do are constantly undermined. Would you care to explain that in a deterministic worldview?

The inconsistencies are what reveal a new model, including in your example. Behaviorism skipped that step, and it shows. So did economics and political science. It wasn't because they proved it. It was because there was nothing to study unless they assumed it. That's the entire difference between the humanities and the hard sciences in a nutshell.

So are physicists, neurologists, and computer scientists truly ready to be relabeled as humanities? I guess that's the real question. If not, stay in your lane. That line is there for a reason.

 

[porch]

What is volition?

I dig poetry as much as the next guy. So, thanks.

 

[Manopolus]

What is volition?

I dig poetry as much as the next guy. So, thanks.

The ability to make decisions. Free will. Just another synonym. Agency is also in the same lexicon.

 

[porch]

The ability to make decisions. Free will. Just another synonym. Agency is also in the same lexicon.

Free will. People talk about it, people talk around it, people say it's obvious open your eyes. As of yet, no actual definition.

A list of synonyms is not useful for defining terms in this kind of discussion. I asked what you mean by volition because you seemed to be using it interchangeably with Free Will. So telling me that you are using them interchangeably is no help.

I actually don't know what you are talking about regarding games and cheating, inconsistencies that reveal a new model? But that's okay. I just want to start from the start. You are claiming Free Will exists, and some entities have it and some don't. Please define Free Will, then we can proceed.

 

[Manopolus]

Hmm? It's defined well enough for me. Just as much as any other concept. I know what it is easily enough. While it's true that saying it in other words doesn't really do much, I do know what it is. It's not a physical substance, if that's what you mean. But not everything that exists is. it's more like a force. The first force I ever knew existed. And no, its presence doesn't depend upon having a word for it. It's foundational. Without it, literally nothing exists in any meaningful way. It's the thing that must exist before acknowledging that anything else does. It's the base motive for learning anything at all. LIterally everything else is built on it. Nobody convinced me of it. I'm pretty sure I knew what it was before anyone proposed a word to represent it. Don't you? That would be truly odd, if so. I have no idea what that would be like, because it isn't my reality.

And keep in mind my main theme. Another way to say it:

Since I'm the only one who experiences my version of it, I'm the only one who can make the judgment of whether your model fits. There's no way to get around that. None. It's not possible. There is no combination of words that can sidestep that. It literally has to be accepted because I'm the only one who experiences me. I'm the only authority on that subject that exists. Nobody has the capacity to know more about it than I do, because they don't experience me from the inside. That's not arrogance. It's baked into the definition intrinsically.

 

[Olmstead]

I'm actually not the one trying to prove anything. I'm just pointing at the obvious thing and saying it's there. But as I said before, I can't know whether you have that. I just know that I do. I can't experience yours, and you can't experience mine. It's 1st person POV only, and it can't be reduced to the 3rd person without losing its core meaning.

Descartes said it best... but don't think that means I agree with everything he said. "I think, therefore I am." But it's more foundational than even that. It's the "I" in that sentence, not the thinking. The will, itself. If you don't have it, I can't show you mine. There's just no way to do that that can't be hand-waved away. But that doesn't mean that I don't know it's there. I'm not confused. It's definitely there, and it's me.

Look, we can argue philosophy after we establish the underlying reality: no one ever has a real choice in what they end up doing or what they end up becoming, it's all based on arbitrary forces. The "right" genes in the "right" circumstances will create a hero, and the "wrong" genes in the "wrong" circumstances will create a villain. Any other theory of how it works is untenable.

Do the hero and the villain thus created "choose" to do their heroics or depravities in any meaningful sense? I think this is where philosophy comes in, but I haven't yet seen such an argument for free will that would satisfy me.

 

[porch]

You know, when someone makes a claim and then someone else asks them to define their terms, it's not a trick question. It's the foundation of argumentation. I was in debate club in grade 9. Teach would write "Be it resolved that:" on the chalkboard, followed by a statement. One team would be assigned as for it, the other against it. The pro side would always go first, and it was their job to define the terms of the statement, which would set the boundaries of the entire debate.

I consider debating part of humanities, or liberal arts, by the way. Using logic, reason, forming coherent ideas that you can communicate to others and then defend, or revise . . . all part of the humanities. So asking for a clear definition is not being, oh, I am so Science, I don't understand anything that isn't in ones and zeroes. Come on.

It's perfectly fine to have your own, personal, unevidenced beliefs that are ineffable. I'll just say, it's not very classy to besmirch the, Idunno, level of consciousness or something, of other posters, then curl up real tight to get a close view of your own navel, and refuse to come out and explain what you even mean.

 

[Thermal]

@porch: You posed that determinism was the bees knees and mocked free will advocates. When I challenged that, you talked about some ambiguous powers. When I asked for clarification, you didn't answer directly, but insisted that a definition of free will was not provided for you, which makes your starting position kinda meaningless.

With the demand for a definition for a broad metaphysical concept, it throws up the red flag that you intend to scrutinize the wording, exploiting the imprecision of the language for rhetorical benefit. Please don't go there. It's cheap, and hardly 'philosophically rigorous'. If you don't understand what is meant (and has been clearly defined- cogito, baby), you could not hold your position. This new agey 'it's all an illusion, maaaan' thing won't get you very far.

So back to your kick-off statement: determinists understand the nature of conciousness in a way that the rest of us don't. Can you justify this without rhetorically shifting the burden to others?

 

[Thermal]

Look, we can argue philosophy after we establish the underlying reality: no one ever has a real choice in what they end up doing or what they end up becoming, it's all based on arbitrary forces. The "right" genes in the "right" circumstances will create a hero, and the "wrong" genes in the "wrong" circumstances will create a villain. Any other theory of how it works is untenable.

Theory? What is the theory of how choice works in the brain, mechanically? Take all the space you need, but the Spark Notes answer is that humankind has not the foggiest ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea, beyond certain parts of the brain getting more lively during certain kinds of thinking.

Do the hero and the villain thus created "choose" to do their heroics or depravities in any meaningful sense? I think this is where philosophy comes in, but I haven't yet seen such an argument for free will that would satisfy me.

And those who observe that we seem to have free will say the same about determinists. The difference is, that you will also conduct yourself and live 100% as if you believe the same as we do. Unironically.

 

[Olmstead]

Theory? What is the theory of how choice works in the brain, mechanically? Take all the space you need, but the Spark Notes answer is that humankind has not the foggiest ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea, beyond certain parts of the brain getting more lively during certain kinds of thinking.

I don't need to, as logic is on my side. There is nothing more to a human than nature and nurture. There is no room for anyone to "choose" what they become.

And those who observe that we seem to have free will say the same about determinists. The difference is, that you will also conduct yourself and live 100% as if you believe the same as we do. Unironically.

If you have an actual argument for free will under my premises, I'd be very happy to hear it.

 

[Thermal]

I don't need to, as logic is on my side. There is nothing more to a human than nature and nurture. There is no room for anyone to "choose" what they become.

Logic demands that you can identify a process before opining on its mechanism.

If you have an actual argument for free will under my premises, I'd be very happy to hear it.

We observe it universally. Barring evidence that 'it's all an illuuuuuusion, maaaaaan', we take the observation at its face value. No idea how it works mechanically, but no one else has one either for competing theories.

Your claim is a profound understanding of existence, for which you provide squat as evidence beyond a vague handwave towards billiard balls. So you need to demonstrate, logically, the choice process using the mighty billiard ball theory. Explain how a neuron reacts during the choice process, and its inevitability. The physical workings for this supposed inevitability should be quite enlightening.

 

[porch]

@porch: You posed that determinism was the bees knees and mocked free will advocates. When I challenged that, you talked about some ambiguous powers. When I asked for clarification, you didn't answer directly, but insisted that a definition of free will was not provided for you, which makes your starting position kinda meaningless.

With the demand for a definition for a broad metaphysical concept, it throws up the red flag that you intend to scrutinize the wording, exploiting the imprecision of the language for rhetorical benefit. Please don't go there. It's cheap, and hardly 'philosophically rigorous'. If you don't understand what is meant (and has been clearly defined- cogito, baby), you could not hold your position. This new agey 'it's all an illusion, maaaan' thing won't get you very far.

So back to your kick-off statement: determinists understand the nature of conciousness in a way that the rest of us don't. Can you justify this without rhetorically shifting the burden to others?

This is fun! Are we having fun?

Let's review.

What you call my mocking, kickoff statement was clearly a direct response to Manopolus' snide statement. That I quoted. In that very post.

When you look at post 365, you can see that I clarified that I do not actually label myself a determinist, and I have no interest or intent in defending anybody's preconceived notions of determinism.

In the post I initially responded to, Manopolus was the one to introduce Free Will as something that some people may have and some may not. Manopolus made a positive statement. My challenge is asking proponents of Free Will to define their terms. It's a basic expectation for someone putting forth an argument. It remains an unmet challenge.

And we can see that, at this point in the discussion, Manopolus does not have a definition of Free Will that they can communicate to anyone else, and they do not intend to even try to come up with one. So there is no argument being put forth at all, y'all.

Say word?

 

[Myriad]

The problem with defining free will is the more clear the definition is, the less useful it is.

Here's mine: free will is the proposition that one could have decided or acted differently than one actually did decide or act, even under identical circumstances.

See what I mean about usefulness? Good luck testing that!

 

[Thermal]

This is fun! Are we having fun?

Always having fun while we're on this side of the dirt.

Let's review.

What you call my mocking, kickoff statement was clearly a direct response to Manopolus' snide statement. That I quoted. In that very post.

Saying "determinists understand their place in the universe and all others are suckered who think they are special" is absolutely mocking, yes.

When you look at post 365, you can see that I clarified that I do not actually label myself a determinist, and I have no interest or intent in defending anybody's preconceived notions of determinism.

In the post I initially responded to, Manopolus was the one to introduce Free Will as something that some people may have and some may not. Manopolus made a positive statement. My challenge is asking proponents of Free Will to define their terms. It's a basic expectation for someone putting forth an argument. It remains an unmet challenge.

It's been repeatedly met. I did so in one word, assuming the reader is familiar and saves paragraphs of defining metaphysical ideas: cogito.

And we can see that, at this point in the discussion, Manopolus does not have a definition of Free Will that they can communicate to anyone else, and they do not intend to even try to come up with one. So there is no argument being put forth at all, y'all.

Say word?

I took Manopolus' duality of NPCs and free willies argument as tongue in cheek, so im.not overly invested in dissecting it.

Bottom line: you claim no one has defined the terms. Not true, it is defined within discussion terms more than adequately: the ability to think as a sentient being, not being an 8-ball on an inevitable mindless trajectory.

What bugs me about determinism is its undercurrent assumption that we do not think. I find that in contradiction to our observations.

 

[Thermal]

The problem with defining free will is the more clear the definition is, the less useful it is.

Here's mine: free will is the proposition that one could have decided or acted differently than one actually did decide or act, even under identical circumstances.

See what I mean about usefulness? Good luck testing that!

Is testing determinism somehow easier?

 

[Manopolus]

Look, we can argue philosophy after we establish the underlying reality: no one ever has a real choice in what they end up doing or what they end up becoming, it's all based on arbitrary forces. The "right" genes in the "right" circumstances will create a hero, and the "wrong" genes in the "wrong" circumstances will create a villain. Any other theory of how it works is untenable.

Because you declare it so? Is that a choice I'm hearing? Or did the argument forbid you from saying anything else? I'm not the one claiming to understand it. I'm just saying you can't understand it without having access to my "me." It's irreducibly subjective. You're trying to convince the only thing that can make the judgment that it doesn't exist. I'm not sure how that could ever result in agreement. Peer pressure might work, but not logic. Accepting it is a complete denial of selfhood. No, I'm pretty sure that I exist, thank you very much. That's quite clear to me. Yes me, that entity that is clearly making word selection choices right here in front of you. Were there influences on those choices? Well sure. But the influences didn't make those choices. I did.

No amount of arguing from ignorance (I don't know, therefore it must be like this thing I do know something about) is going to be able to change that.

 

[Manopolus]

Free will. People talk about it, people talk around it, people say it's obvious open your eyes. As of yet, no actual definition.

A list of synonyms is not useful for defining terms in this kind of discussion. I asked what you mean by volition because you seemed to be using it interchangeably with Free Will. So telling me that you are using them interchangeably is no help.

I actually don't know what you are talking about regarding games and cheating, inconsistencies that reveal a new model? But that's okay. I just want to start from the start. You are claiming Free Will exists, and some entities have it and some don't. Please define Free Will, then we can proceed.

Wow, you need that spelled out, too? I assumed you knew enough about physics to support your analogy/metaphor. The reason we use a new model with the sun at the center is that geocentrism doesn't explain retrograde. No such problem existed in the humanities. Their problem was that if volition/free will/agency truly exists, then they can't study behavior as a purely causal phenomenon. Once you add in agency, everything becomes subjective.

And that's why everything they study has determinism baked into the result. It was already there in the postulate. That's not a problem in physics, because nobody believed that inarticulate matter had volition in the first place.

And that's exactly why the humanities are treated as lesser sciences, and also why systems built on them don't always tend to work very well. Yes, they sort of work, but not with any reliability. And ways to cheat these systems in ways contrary to the design (economics especially) show up immediately.

And quite frankly, I've yet to see science suggest that such a justification exists in the humanities. All of the supposed "evidence" I've seen was about defining the limit of "me" and showing that this isn't where decisions are made. Well, no. I'm not the memory. I'm not the recall mechanism. Those are things I consult, and they're not that reliable. I am that which is making the freaking decisions, thank you very much. That's my core reality. And I also already know that I consult the present more than I do memory to determine what happened. That isn't anything new to me, because I've always known that something right in front of me was more reliable. THAT particular experiment taught me literally nothing. I already knew that, and it doesn't change anything or suggest anything about the will. It's purely an aspect of memory, which I already knew was flawed. Memory and imagination are functionally the same freaking mechanism, for crying out loud. The only difference is how I'm using it. That I've always known, too, despite the fact that it frequently shows up as pop science hooplah as if nobody ever knew before. I know that just from experiencing it.

Everything else I've heard was just an argument from ignorance, and clearly so.

 

[Manopolus]

So, basically. I AM the will. Reducing me to anything else does not match my experience whatsoever. If you discover anything less, then you can't even find me. How am I supposed to believe that you know anything about me? Everything else is just something I use, not my consciousness. I'm not the memory. I'm not the words. I'm not the perceptions. I'm not even the identity.

I'm the will.

But the rest does belong to me, as well. Even the identity is just a place where I keep my stuff. I'll probably have to give it a good cleaning again soon. It's getting cluttered.

 

[Thermal]

Will I am, indeed. And if you are William Dafoe, then you are also the adversary.