Question to free will skeptics

[quixotecoyote]

Sure, show me the part where I said or implied anything even remotely like that???

Spitting out a desperate straw man is "getting me"? It is you who are living in a fantasy world mate.

Read a little more carefully. I was characterising your definition. So you "got" yourself.

"Free from controlling factors" is an incoherent concept, but it is one on which your definition depend.

I had already given the definition that I agreed with:

and I am not sure what part of it your didn't understand or could have possibly misconstrued to thnk that I meant "free from controlling factors".

Still, I suppose with sufficient practice you could misconstrue anything to mean anything else.

<laugh> You're delusional. I try to give you a little credit for finally understanding my position and you go all snarky and boldface on me

 

[Taffer]

Sure, show me the part where I said or implied anything even remotely like that???

Spitting out a desperate straw man is "getting me"? It is you who are living in a fantasy world mate.

Read a little more carefully. I was characterising your definition. So you "got" yourself.

"Free from controlling factors" is an incoherent concept, but it is one on which your definition depend.

I had already given the definition that I agreed with:

and I am not sure what part of it your didn't understand or could have possibly misconstrued to thnk that I meant "free from controlling factors".

Still, I suppose with sufficient practice you could misconstrue anything to mean anything else.

WTF?

 

[Complexity]

Ultimately, physics.

Nah. That just interfers with the classical notion of determinism; it doesn't leave an opening for free will.

[Shhh! Robin doesn't want me here, and she's a little bit scary in a non-gay way. Let's see what she's going to teach us next!]

 

[Robin]

Try not to be too silly.

Your OP asked a yes/no question.

I answered. I suspected you were using that to provoke an argument and indicated that I have disdain for the kinds of discussions that you seem to enjoy.

Thank you for your kind suggestions. I'll give them all due consideration.

Why are you so hell-bent on the existence of free-will?

It isn't a very intelligent position to take.

I wonder what other threads you've started... I know I've seen you sneaking around here.

You still here?

What makes you think that I am hell-bent on the existence of free will. I have stated my position on this fairly clearly including that libertarian free will does not exist.

Try it in this order:
1. Read
2. Understand
3. Think (preferably for more than about 3.5 seconds)
4. Think again
5. Respond

It will really help you improve the quality of your contributions.

 

[Robin]

Ultimately, physics.

Actually if either of you had actually read what I had written you would have realised I am not hell bent on the existence of free will.

But I suppose it is a little too much to ask for you to make intelligent contributions.

 

[Robin]

Nah. That just interfers with the classical notion of determinism; it doesn't leave an opening for free will.

[Shhh! Robin doesn't want me here, and she's a little bit scary in a non-gay way. Let's see what she's going to teach us next!]

Actually you were the one who first insisted you didn't want to be here.

What I would like is for you to make an intelligent contribution, preferably based on something I have actually said and not something you pretended I meant, like the above comment. Straw man arguments are silly and you said you find silliness distasteful. So be consistent.

Now what I said before.

 

[Darat]

Robin & Complexity - stop the bickering.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[blobru]

Robin & Complexity - stop the bickering.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

Begging the question, isn't it?

Seems to me absolute free will of the sort envisioned by existentialists like Sartre is impossible. No one is "free" of disposition and circumstance.
So the compatibilist shifts the focus of "free" from choice to choices: the more responses a person can conceive of to a given situation -- the greater her skill-set, understanding and info -- the freer that person is. Of course arriving at a rational decision and acting on it might also involve courage, if courage isn't a function of understanding (cf. Socrates: "knowledge [self-, of the Good] is virtue"; substitute 'world' for 'Good' for compatibilist ethics).

 

[MRC_Hans]

Randomness cannot be the basis of will, because the "chooser" has no control over its output. If randomness allows for free will, then the term "free will" looses all meaning.

Conceeded.

However, a random choice will simulate free will. To the outside world, it will be indistinguishable from free will (you may find the choices fickle, but you cannot determine if they are actually random). And they serve perfectly well to demonstrate the existence of free will.

Hans

 

[quixotecoyote]

Conceeded.

However, a random choice will simulate free will. To the outside world, it will be indistinguishable from free will (you may find the choices fickle, but you cannot determine if they are actually random). And they serve perfectly well to demonstrate the existence of free will.

Hans

As per your reasoning above, they would demonstrate the illusion of free will

 

[Taffer]

Conceeded.

However, a random choice will simulate free will. To the outside world, it will be indistinguishable from free will (you may find the choices fickle, but you cannot determine if they are actually random). And they serve perfectly well to demonstrate the existence of free will.

Hans

Agreed. Of course I would argue that this is not "true" free will, but the illusion of it.

 

[Soapy Sam]

My definition allows for infinite variations in the amount of free will. The smarter you are, the more options become percieved. The more skills you have, the more options become available.

In his science fiction novel "Protector", Larry Niven proposed a counterargument to this. The eponymous Protector is a human whose brain and body have undergone drastic improvements for plot reasons we may ignore.
The point is that this creature is so intelligent he can see many moves further ahead in a causative chain than any normal human. His choices, by your argument, should be less constrained than those of a normal man.

Niven makes the point that the Protector's behaviour is constrained by an innate drive to protect his own bloodline- and that a creature who is always able to see the best choice to meet his goal is constrained, either to choose that optimum course, or to knowingly choose a less than optimal one, which is stupid.

So the only case in which an entity has absolute free will is one where there is not only no limit to his intelligence, but also no constraint whatever, genetic or otherwise , on his behaviour.

And humans meet neither condition.

 

[Jekyll]

Either you assume that all random elements are also the same, or you ignore random elements as allowing free will. If free will is allowed by random elements, then it is no more "will" then a decaying particle has "will" as to when it decays.

Yup. That was my problem with your definition back on the first page, that it didn't seem to rule out randomness.

 

[Jekyll]

The other strand is compatibilism where it essentially means that we can make choices that are relatively independent of influences external to our conscious thought processes. Daniel Dennett, for example, describes this type of free will, calling it "the only free will worth having".

Just to check if I'm following this, under this definition a fully deterministic, chess playing automa has free will, yes?

 

[l0rca]

Being determined to deny free will: argument from ignorance... or worse?

You decide.

I'm making an argument from ignorance?

 

[Taffer]

Yup. That was my problem with your definition back on the first page, that it didn't seem to rule out randomness.

Actually, it does. It specifically describes all physical variables as being the same the second time around. This means even the random elements.

However, if you wish to exclude random elements from this, then one obviously sees that randomness cannot possibly be considered "will", as the "chooser" has no control over the random variable whatsoever. So, either my definition includes randomness, or randomness is irrelevant.

 

[Jekyll]

Actually, it does. It specifically describes all physical variables as being the same the second time around. This means even the random elements.

There may well be no hidden variables/parameters governing radioactive decay.
Anyway if something is genuinely random, then matching physical variables does not fix the output, so your definition still doesn't work.

However, if you wish to exclude random elements from this, then one obviously sees that randomness cannot possibly be considered "will", as the "chooser" has no control over the random variable whatsoever. So, either my definition includes randomness, or randomness is irrelevant.

Are you changing your definition so it now includes some concept of "will" then? Because you were initially just saying, free will is just unpredictable decision making.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Actually if either of you had actually read what I had written you would have realised I am not hell bent on the existence of free will.

And I indicated that you were how? I realise your position, and if I had wished to discuss it with you, would have addressed you. Quit assuming that becuase you start a thread, every post in it is a comment about you.

 

[MRC_Hans]

As per your reasoning above, they would demonstrate the illusion of free will

Strictly speaking, yes, you are right. It would demonstrate the possibility for decisions that were not entirely based on the previous state.

It would not demonstrate that such decisions actually exist, only that they can exist. That, however, should be enough for most .

..... And a good deal more concrete than any musings about "what if we could rewind and replay".

Hans

 

[Robin]

A stupid question from me please.

What will all of this prove? Will believers disbelieve if there is. Will non-believers believe if there isn't?

I can't see it changing anything, so why pose the question. Or have I missed something?

I think I posted this of my own free will.

Excuse the tardiness of the reply. It is not a stupid question at all and I suppose there might be a number of levels of answering "why pose the question".

Essentially I intended just what I set out, that people who did not believe in free will should state the definition by which they reached the conclusion and for the debate to lead where it will.

Where I thought it would lead was that all definitions would eventually resolve to the two I defined earlier - compatibilist and libertarian.

I don't think that any definition is the right definition, only that they would be useful in certain circumstances. For example thinking about the concept of libertarian free will (which I think is impossible) leads us to conclusions about our own thought processes.

On the other hand thinking about compatibilist free will (which I think we do have) leads more to conclusions about the nature of freedom.

How successful I have been, I have to leave others to judge.