Science and free will

[RandFan]

I believe it's a perfectly apt description of the case...

An "apt description"? I'm not sure what that is exactly as it relates to the discussion but I'll concede the point. Descriptions don't always offer insight? I don't see how this description offers us any in this instance.

...and I don't think "didn't do what he or she wanted to" describes it very well.

I'm not sure how it tells us anything less. I think your preference is simply personal. Could you explain how one is more meaningful than the other? What does lacking the "power" tell me that "didn't do" doesn't tell me?

In a failure of character scenario, it's not so much a failure of a goal that is the problem per se--it's the success of conflicting goals.

Of course the question becomes, what is the goal? For the person with OCD, does one wash hands for 6 hours to be clean or because one does not have a sense of well being until he or she washes his or her hands for 6 hours? Isn't "being clean" simply a post hoc rationalization, an attempt to give a conscious explanation for an unconscious compulsion?

If so then I suspect that "will power" is the same. We are simply inserting a place holder for our ignorance. We don't really have much insight into the precise nature of why we act. We can understand why we do from an evolutionary perspective. We know how hunger and feeling satiated work to keep us alive but we don't know much more beyond that and we think that we consciously choose to eat.

 

[yy2bggggs]

An "apt description"? I'm not sure what that is exactly as it relates to the discussion but I'll concede the point.

Oh, don't do that... that just keeps me from figuring out that I'm wrong if I am.

What I was referring to was that I do not think this is simply a post-hoc analysis--sure, you failed to reach your goal, and you can say that you had a lack of power, but you can also go further and analyze why you failed, and you can do that meaningfully if you're simply honest. I apologize for using the phrase "didn't try hard enough"--I didn't intend to match that with this scenario per se, as I don't believe that's actually an accurate assessment of what you do to fix the situation.

But what I mean here is that there's a pragmatic, meaningful difference between the scenario where something is merely beyond your capacity, and a scenario where you fail due to a weakness of character. Both could possibly be mitigated, but they require different approaches. A meta-strategy approach is definitely worth considering in the weakness of character scenario--ideally, you would develop a particular strategy that actually accounts for the conflicting desires in your approach, rather than try to work against your own desires. In terms of the diet, you feel hungry in the middle of the day... then you should figure out what situation leads to this. High blood sugar early on would lead to this, so rather than brute forcing your way through "sheer will" on your diet, you can mitigate for these other desires--by avoiding eating sweets in the morning. Eating bulkier, more filling foods in the morning helps as well. These are the sorts of things you would do--you would plan for the desires that conflict with your goal and account for them. "Lack of power" in this sense is really meant to convey your ability given a particular approach.

Now, it may not always be possible to mitigate for these desires, but even in this case, if you could at least become aware of them, you could live with yourself easier. (On the other hand, I would recommend caution about giving up--we are, IMO, terrible judges of our own capacity, so I would strongly suggest "testing yourself objectively", so to speak).

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Great. Thank you for clearly admitting that you are not willing to face this question:

Did you even pay attention to the examples I gave you of mental diseases? I would love to hear your take on that. Would you seriously say that we can rely exclusively on a First Person type of approach when you actually have human beings that are completely unaware that their arm is paralyzed? Or human beings that don't have an awareness of their Left Side of their world. Or human beings who think their mother is an impostor (only when they see them but not when they talk to them on the phone). What's your take on that? For once I'd like to hear your take on actual real examples of real cases rather than abstract philosophical drivel

Thank you for demonstrating that you are incapable of admitting what is already obvious
You asked if it was possible to be mistaken about something as apparently obvious as missing a limb and I gave you irrefutable evidence that it is possible and what did you do? You escaped the subject

Can't say I'm amazed at all. It's not the first time you avoid discussing an actual real subject that involved real cases with real people

 

[RandFan]

What I was referring to was that I do not think this is simply a post-hoc analysis--sure, you failed to reach your goal, and you can say that you had a lack of power, but you can also go further and analyze why you failed, and you can do that meaningfully if you're simply honest.

You've not explained why it's not simply a post-hoc analysis. That said I agree with the rest of what you say and it is correct regardless of the assumption.

I apologize for using the phrase "didn't try hard enough"

...

Now, it may not always be possible to mitigate for these desires, but even in this case, if you could at least become aware of them, you could live with yourself easier. (On the other hand, I would recommend caution about giving up--we are, IMO, terrible judges of our own capacity, so I would strongly suggest "testing yourself objectively", so to speak).

Please be assured that this really ISN'T about me. I'm in the UCLA options program and I've also spent 27 years reading and educating myself about nutrition and human behavior.

The thing is, it is my life's experiences that cause me to be skeptical of things like "will power". Like the word "ego" I think it has some limited usage to convey information but what most people think of as "will power" likely isn't what they think it is.


Bottom line, I remain unconvinced that will power has much meaning. I'm reminded of Kant's example of putting a gallows in front of the brothel. Given a choice of instant death following the act of fornication most people would have the "power" to resist temptation. But given an eternity of punishment at the end of an unkown life span a good many people would take the immediate gratification.

1. Clearly we are capable of decisions.
2. Clearly those decisions are influenced by both internal and external forces.
3. Those forces are often in conflict
4. We often act contrary to what we would argue is in our best interest.

Why #4?

I can't help wonder whether or not we are closer to Skinner's pigeons than we would like to admit.

Finally, thanks for the response but you aren't furthering my understanding of behavior nor are you making a convincing argument that "will power" has any real meaning.

Why is an instruction of "just stop it" insufficent for someone who has OCD and spends 6 hours washing his or her hands?

I'm sorry you ignored that part of my original post but it is truly salient to my point.

 

[yy2bggggs]

You've not explained why it's not simply a post-hoc analysis. That said I agree with the rest of what you say and it is correct regardless of the assumption.

I'm what confused. Simply a post-hoc analysis, to me, indicates that you have collected data, and you just stare for any sort of pattern in the data. That doesn't describe what goes on. I step on the scale and notice I didn't lose weight. But I don't have to look for patterns in the data--I know what the patterns are already. I was there when I ate the cheesecake, and when I rationalized that just this once, it wouldn't hurt. I was there when I was feeling so hungry I said to myself that I had to eat something, and went down to the store looking for it in the first place. I rationalized it away, perhaps, or probably said I'll exercise 10 minutes more or some nonsense, but that was what I did. We're not talking about a scenario, I don't think, where I sleepwalk to the fridge to binge.

Do we mean different things by post hoc analysis^WP?

Please be assured that this really ISN'T about me.

I'm simply running with an example is all. I'm not trying to give dieting advice--in fact, my examples don't even really reflect how I maintain my diet (and I'm not even sure I know how I do it exactly, or that it would even work for someone else--I just know what I try, and it seems to work).

The thing is, it is my life's experiences that cause me to be skeptical of things like "will power".

So am I... I suspect I'm simply describing it differently. I give in, but I give into a desire--and I do so because I have short term and long term goals, but I only ever really live in the short term.

Are we talking past each other? Because I'm still not quite sure I follow what you're saying is post-hoc. I think I understand your point, but I was trying to say that the thing you're arguing against wasn't quite what I had in mind.

But given an eternity of punishment at the end of an unkown life span a good many people would take the immediate gratification.

Right... short term desires are generally very powerful, because we're always in the present. But they are still desires.

1. Clearly we are capable of decisions.
2. Clearly those decisions are influenced by both internal and external forces.
3. Those forces are often in conflict
4. We often act contrary to what we would argue is in our best interest.

Why #4?

Because we want to. We're split--we're the guy that wants to lose weight, but we're also the guy who would love to sink our teeth into that cheesecake. We generally want to accomplish long term goals, but we're overcome by short term desires. But that's because we have those short term desires in the first place, and because they actually conflict with the goals (at least given certain strategies).

Finally, thanks for the response but you aren't furthering my understanding of behavior nor are you making a convincing argument that "will power" has any real meaning.

Ah... perhaps that is it. I believe we are talking past each other. I'm most certainly not making an argument for will power--in fact, I'm generally calling the attempt to appeal to it a very bad strategy.

Why is an instruction of "just stop it" insufficent for someone who has OCD and spends 6 hours washing his or her hands?

Same reason I can hold my breath for 30 seconds, but I find it nearly impossible to hold it until I pass out. Because as much as I intend to hold my breath, I also develop this urge to breathe. The two desires conflict.

If you still think I haven't addressed something, please be patient with me.

 

[RandFan]

I'm what confused. Simply a post-hoc analysis, to me, indicates that you have collected data, and you just stare for any sort of pattern in the data.

Not quite. Post-hoc analysis would be any time you come to a conclusion not necessarily supported by the facts. The conclusion might be true but a.) you've not established it and b.) you've not established that the conclusion follows from the observed data.

How do you control for your bias?

A good example is political affiliation. People often rationalize why they are of a particular affiliation when what they are doing is simply justifying what is an emotional or endoctrinated belief. The same is true of religion. People love to argue why they are Christian or Muslim or Hindu but their arguments don't overcome the fact that religious belief, demonstrably, has far more to do with geography, familial ties and group identity than any reasoned argument.

That doesn't describe what goes on. I step on the scale and notice I didn't lose weight. But I don't have to look for patterns in the data--I know what the patterns are already. I was there when I ate the cheesecake, and when I rationalized that just this once, it wouldn't hurt. I was there when I was feeling so hungry I said to myself that I had to eat something, and went down to the store looking for it in the first place. I rationalized it away, perhaps, or probably said I'll exercise 10 minutes more or some nonsense, but that was what I did. We're not talking about a scenario, I don't think, where I sleepwalk to the fridge to binge.

So, you know precisely what is happening in your brain? Your description here is completely objective and you've ruled out all subconscious and other neurological variables?

I kinda doubt it.

Are we talking past each other?

That could very well be. Since the post I responded to, one I thought was very good, you seem to be moving in a different direction.

FWIW: I'm not rejecting "will to power" I'm saying that we lack sufficient understanding of the brain to make concrete assessments like, "oh, he lacks will power".

Ah... perhaps that is it. I believe we are talking past each other. I'm most certainly not making an argument for will power--in fact, I'm generally calling the attempt to appeal to it a very bad strategy.
Same reason I can hold my breath for 30 seconds, but I find it nearly impossible to hold it until I pass out. Because as much as I intend to hold my breath, I also develop this urge to breathe. The two desires conflict.

If you still think I haven't addressed something, please be patient with me.

I think you are correct and I appreciate very much your willingness to be patient with me. Often these discussions go south and end up with lots of heated debate.

Being that I'm in my own mind and must deal with this on a regular basis I think about it constantly. I've taken up Blackmore's suggestion of asking myself, "am I conscious now".

Have you ever had a sore on your tounge and you kept scraping it against your tooth? You could consciously keep yourself from doing it but eventually you would lose focus and the tounge would be scraping agaisnt the tooth again even though you didn't want it to. Why?

As for conscious decision making, I can at anytime forgo eating anything. I can fast for days. Or, I can follow the program prescribed to me by the UCLA nutritionist and follow a healthy diet for a given period of time. However, in nearly 30 years I have never been able to sustain a long term healthy lifestyle.

It's easy to simply state that I lack the will power but after decades of studying human behavior and psychology I honestly don't know what that means beyond the inability of a person to accomplish a goal.

Recently I've been studying OCD, someone I care about has it, and it amazes me how seeminly simple it should be to overcome this specific affliction. Why is it so hard? Something inside me wants to scream "stop it"!

My conclusions are simply that I don't think we are as in control of our behavior as we would like to think we are. Like the ego I suspect it is largely an illusion.

Thanks

 

[yy2bggggs]

How do you control for your bias?

This seems like an open question, and I'm not particularly sure what you're asking about specifically.

So, you know precisely what is happening in your brain?

I'm confused. Are you saying that I do not really know why I ate the cheesecake? That may be so... and in fact, it's probably likely. But that's beside the point.

I know I ate the cheesecake. I know what problem I have to solve--why I ate the cheesecake. And I know I did it because I had a desire, though perchance I'm using terms a bit differently than you.

Maybe you're inferring that I think I know what happened in my brain because I mentioned "I was there when I rationalized...", but that would have been taken the wrong way. I don't know why I do every little thing, but there are indeed situations where I do in fact catch myself rationalizing, and in those situations, I don't have severe reasons to doubt that I rationalized it. The reason I mentioned this is because it tends to be a stereotypical thing to happen on a diet (the "I'll only eat one"/"I'll exercise more" notion), not because I'm trying to suggest we are constantly aware of these things.

I've taken up Blackmore's suggestion of asking myself, "am I conscious now".

Heh... okay, I won't ask you to define conscious here... but yeah, I'm perfectly aware that most of the time I'm stuck in a sort of "autopilot"... it's quite intriguing.

Have you ever had a sore on your tounge and you kept scraping it against your tooth? You could consciously keep yourself from doing it but eventually you would lose focus and the tounge would be scraping agaisnt the tooth again even though you didn't want it to. Why?

More specifically, you wanted to not do it (the modal correction here for emphasis that this is a goal--perfectly okay to speak this way loosely otherwise given you're aware of it). But you also had a desire to do it. This is, in fact, quite what you're describing--you're suppressing a desire to perform this action you do not want to do.

Maybe I'm being more inclusive with the term "desire" than you. I view desires as internal states--manifest when you have little goals you want to achieve, which if you're lucky, you're aware of. In addition, these little goals are about things that require some sort of perception, analysis, etc in order to achieve (by virtue of being worthy of being called "desire"), and are abstract things--the goal is not exactly the same thing as obtaining it (eating an orange works just as well as the cheesecake, but going for that celery stick does nothing), and may or may not be even be something that can be "achieved" (that is, goes away once it is reached). You don't necessarily know what these things are, but you have them, and those are the things that interfere with your higher level goals, in the specific scenario I imagine that we're talking about--where you have "weakness of character". I've yet to discuss the other sort of "lack of power", but I think it's a bit more obvious (I cannot break my track record--I can mitigate this by a different sort of approach--by training more).

Recently I've been studying OCD, someone I care about has it, and it amazes me how seeminly simple it should be to overcome this specific affliction. Why is it so hard? Something inside me wants to scream "stop it"!

I might just be fooling myself, but I find with a bit of creativity, I can map something onto quite a number of alien situations in order to at least get a picture of what it's like. With respect to OCD, holding my breath for a while seems to do the picture--I can easily imagine having a "little goal" to accomplish certain sorts of things, similar to that urge to breath, that I quite simply cannot overcome.

My conclusions are simply that I don't think we are as in control of our behavior as we would like to think we are.

Wouldn't that depend on how in control you think you are? All I'm talking about is the things that could possibly count as will. They happen for reasons. Going back to the topic of hand, we're considering LFW, and your failed diet. I'm pointing out that even in your failed diet, there's a reason you failed. And yet, oddly enough, there may be ways you can succeed, but it's best met by trying to work with yourself rather than plow over your "little goals". This is done by using strategies. These are the sorts of things we can will to do with complex acts, such as dieting. But through it all, nothing here looks even remotely indeterministic--if it were, we certainly cannot say that we were the cause in any sense.

Like the ego I suspect it is largely an illusion.

I suspect it's a bit fuzzier than that. Probably the biggest fuzzy thing is where you draw the line around the self. That sort of matters with respect to whether or not you call it will, but since I'm only trying to speak to what can be called will, I'm sort of ignoring this piece.

 

[RandFan]

This seems like an open question, and I'm not particularly sure what you're asking about specifically.

How do you know your conclusions are not influenced by what you want them to be (consciously or subconscously)?

Even an objective scientist who wants to be objective must control for bias (see confirmation bias). My point is that you can't do that and I think we should be skeptical of such assesments.

I'm confused. Are you saying that I do not really know why I ate the cheesecake? That may be so... and in fact, it's probably likely. But that's beside the point.

Then we have a point of disagreement. I don't think it is beside the point. However it might be that we are talking past each other.

I know I ate the cheesecake. I know what problem I have to solve--why I ate the cheesecake. And I know I did it because I had a desire, though perchance I'm using terms a bit differently than you.

This seems far too simplistic. Can you eliminate all other mechanisms beyond desire? Why does a person with OCD wash his or her hands for up to 6 hours?

Maybe you're inferring that I think I know what happened in my brain because I mentioned "I was there when I rationalized...", but that would have been taken the wrong way. I don't know why I do every little thing, but there are indeed situations where I do in fact catch myself rationalizing, and in those situations, I don't have severe reasons to doubt that I rationalized it.

I'm not so much interested in the rationalizing but rather the assumption that you know why you do or don't do something or to what extent you can control your behavior. How can we be certain that any outcome is "chosen"? Why can't we instead presume that any outcome is the result of many unkown variables so complex and diverse as to be the equivalant of storms. One day you might have the donut and the next decide against it. Why?

I'm not ruling out that we are at odds with our communication BTW. I am trying to understand what you are saying in light of what I'm saying.

The reason I mentioned this is because it tends to be a stereotypical thing to happen on a diet (the "I'll only eat one"/"I'll exercise more" notion), not because I'm trying to suggest we are constantly aware of these things.

Heh... okay, I won't ask you to define conscious here... but yeah, I'm perfectly aware that most of the time I'm stuck in a sort of "autopilot"... it's quite intriguing.More specifically, you wanted to not do it (the modal correction here for emphasis that this is a goal--perfectly okay to speak this way loosely otherwise given you're aware of it). But you also had a desire to do it. This is, in fact, quite what you're describing--you're suppressing a desire to perform this action you do not want to do.

Maybe I'm being more inclusive with the term "desire" than you. I view desires as internal states--manifest when you have little goals you want to achieve, which if you're lucky, you're aware of. In addition, these little goals are about things that require some sort of perception, analysis, etc in order to achieve (by virtue of being worthy of being called "desire"), and are abstract things--the goal is not exactly the same thing as obtaining it (eating an orange works just as well as the cheesecake, but going for that celery stick does nothing), and may or may not be even be something that can be "achieved" (that is, goes away once it is reached). You don't necessarily know what these things are, but you have them, and those are the things that interfere with your higher level goals, in the specific scenario I imagine that we're talking about--where you have "weakness of character". I've yet to discuss the other sort of "lack of power", but I think it's a bit more obvious (I cannot break my track record--I can mitigate this by a different sort of approach--by training more).

I might just be fooling myself, but I find with a bit of creativity, I can map something onto quite a number of alien situations in order to at least get a picture of what it's like. With respect to OCD, holding my breath for a while seems to do the picture--I can easily imagine having a "little goal" to accomplish certain sorts of things, similar to that urge to breath, that I quite simply cannot overcome.

My guess is that the underlying mechanisms are far more complex than we understand. However, to give you a nod to something earlier you said, I think, this belief can be in and of itself a self fulfilling condition. "Oh hell, I have no control anyway so why not eat this box of cookies"?

Wouldn't that depend on how in control you think you are? All I'm talking about is the things that could possibly count as will. They happen for reasons. Going back to the topic of hand, we're considering LFW, and your failed diet. I'm pointing out that even in your failed diet, there's a reason you failed. And yet, oddly enough, there may be ways you can succeed, but it's best met by trying to work with yourself rather than plow over your "little goals". This is done by using strategies. These are the sorts of things we can will to do with complex acts, such as dieting. But through it all, nothing here looks even remotely indeterministic--if it were, we certainly cannot say that we were the cause in any sense.
I suspect it's a bit fuzzier than that. Probably the biggest fuzzy thing is where you draw the line around the self. That sort of matters with respect to whether or not you call it will, but since I'm only trying to speak to what can be called will, I'm sort of ignoring this piece.

I think I understand you. So long as we can both agree that there are epistemological limits as to why we behave then I can accept the term "will" as you use it here. I'm fond of using the word ego when others deny it exists but as I often point out it still has pragmatic use regardless of its limits.

 

[yy2bggggs]

I think I understand you. So long as we can both agree that there are epistemological limits as to why we behave then I can accept the term "will" as you use it here. I'm fond of using the word ego when others deny it exists but as I often point out it still has pragmatic use regardless of its limits.

I'm not sure if there's still something you want to resolve, but I think we were indeed talking past each other.

 

[Belz...]

Then stop insulting mine. No scientific instrument can determine what the word "headache" means. Science studies BRAINS, Ron. It studies neurons and chemicals and electrical signals. It doesn't study headaches. "Headache" is a word used by humans to describe some aspect of their subjective experience. Scientists then go looking for NEURAL CORRELATES or causes of the headache. They don't go looking for the headache.

What is the difference with what science detects and the actual thing ? I think at this point you are creating unwarranted entities.

This is so simple I really do not understand why so many people apparently cannot understand what I am saying.

Honestly, I think the principal problem is that you are using archaic or discredited concepts.

The agent of your free will is the same as the agent of my free will. There is only one, just like there is only one observer.

Are you saying that the sole agent of free will is God ? If so, you seem to be implying that He is the one who makes you act. How is that "free" ? Or did I misunderstand ?

There is a difference between "being aware of" and "being constrained by". Your thoughts are constrained by what your brain is doing. You can't have a thought which doesn't have some sort of neural correlate. So those thoughts are determined. But the agent isn't your thoughts at all - it is the thing which is aware of those thoughts. IT is not determined.

You are aware, I hope, that "undertermined" in the scientific sense would mean that it is random, since "random" is a synonym.

The agent is aware of everything you are aware of. If it wasn't there, you'd be a zombie.

If you're aware of everything that the agent is aware of then you wouldn't be a zombie even without the agent.

It is different because this thing is aware of the contents of your mind.

But it doesn't matter, because by your own definition it is unrelated to those contents. It's aware but it acts without a connection to them. And you said yourself it wasn't a "decision", so it can't be made using said knowledge. It just happens. I know of another category of events that "just happen".

 

[Belz...]

This...

0 < P(x) < 1
includes almost everything.

Yes. The REST, 0 and 1, are deterministic. Random means undetermined. Sorry.

I can't answer that question. In order for you to stand any chance of understanding my answer, you would have to have intimate knowledge of both my entire personal history and my understanding of religion/philosophy. In other words, you'd have to be me, or at the very least somebody who has a great deal in common with me.

You are being evasive. Ron is asking you what criteria should _people_ use.

Then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Now you're being extremely evasive. Did you even read his examples ?

 

[Belz...]

Therefore it is unfalsifiable. If there cannot be a different outcome to its existence of non-existence, the reasonable thing to do is to assume that it isn't real.

You said "the agent of free will". But you also said that free will was uncaused. Therefore it cannot have an agent, because such an agent would be a cause.

Any comments, UE ?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You said "the agent of free will". But you also said that free will was uncaused. Therefore it cannot have an agent, because such an agent would be a cause.

It's a cause-free agent, dude!

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Any comments, UE ?

In reference to:

You said "the agent of free will". But you also said that free will was uncaused. Therefore it cannot have an agent, because such an agent would be a cause.

It is a misunderstanding of the term "agent." "The agent of free will means "that entity which is responsible for us having the potential for free will." If so, there has to be an agent of free will, else we wouldn't have free will.

 

[Belz...]

It is a misunderstanding of the term "agent." "The agent of free will means "that entity which is responsible for us having the potential for free will." If so, there has to be an agent of free will, else we wouldn't have free will.

Not necessarily. Still, assuming it's true, then free will is caused.

Also, you forgot this:

Therefore it is unfalsifiable. If there cannot be a different outcome to its existence of non-existence, the reasonable thing to do is to assume that it isn't real.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Not necessarily. Still, assuming it's true, then free will is caused.

Of course it's uncaused. It if was caused then it wouldn't be free.

 

[Beth]

How is it deterministic? Consider this example. I am overweight. I wish to lose weight to improve my health and looks. I try dieting and fail. I join weight watchers with my sister, who also wishes to lose weight and we both succeed. The decision to lose weight is what I think UE is referring to as 'will'. It is a choice I make. By choosing to join weight watchers, I purposefully alter the probability that I will succeed in losing weight. But it isn't a deterministic alteration. I might or might not succeed with the program nor do I know, in advance, how much of a difference it will make in the probability of my success.

Would you consider that a deterministic process? If so, could you tell me why?

It is the decision to join weight watchers and skew the probability that is relevant here. The outcome is another issue entirely. So we're back to whether you think the decision is determinstic or free.

Okay. So do you think that decision is deterministic or free? If you feel it is deterministic, could you explain why?

I don't agree. Why should that aspect be considered deterministic?

Beth, we're going around in circles. It is deterministic because it is not random, and those are the only two choices. You still haven't described your third "technique" of making decisions.

The third "technique" is easy. It's a decision made consciously and deliberately. A simpler terminology is with intent, such as the decision to lose weight or the decision to join weight watchers in order to increase the probability of losing weight. We humans made decisions with intent every day. I don't think either or those decisions is reasonably called 'deterministic' nor are they random in the sense that all outcomes are equally probable (is that how you are using random?). They can be considered random in the sense that there are various outcomes that have varying probabilities, but another decision can also impact the probability of various outcomes and may have been made deliberately in order to affect the probabilities of the various outcomes of another decision.

Not really. I'm trying to determine if you can convince me that there isn't. I'm not sure that there has to be a third factor. But I'm not convinced there can't be either.

If there isn't a third factor, then the decision was entire deterministic and/or random. There is no libertarian free will there.

What definition of random are you using at this point and why do you think it is mutually exclusive with LFW?

Why would it have to be something other than that?

Because "deterministic skewing of random processes" is not what libertarian free willies have in mind.

So you claim. I'm not so sure and I'm as reluctant to accept your definition of LFW as I am to accept UE's definition of materialism. Incidently, name calling does not improve your argument IMO.

Yes, that is indeed a very interesting question. I think we do it to ourselves. How we are able to accomplish that is a mystery to me.

So now we agree that the source of libertarian free will is a complete mystery. The only difference between us is that I don't think there can logically be such a source.

~~ Paul

I think that sums it up nicely though I don't think we were ever in disagreement on the mystery part. I am simply not convinced that your logic in dismissing the concept of LFW is as sound as you believe it to be.

 

[Beth]

That's a good question and one I've been mulling over. I'm also overweight.

According to Sapolsky, some folks with OCD spend upwards of 6 hours a day washing their hands. Isn't the answer simply to stop it?

Some people are alcoholics. The 'cure' for their disease is to simply stop drinking.
Other people are smokers. They aren't considered to have a disease the way alcoholics are, but the 'cure' is the same. They simply have to stop smoking.

Human behavior is clearly complex and difficult to manage. There are no certainties, which is why I find determinism untenable and I don't find randomness incompable with free will.

My conclusions are simply that I don't think we are as in control of our behavior as we would like to think we are. Like the ego I suspect it is largely an illusion.

Thanks

I don't think we are in much disagreement. I think that such non-physical concepts as ego and soul may well be illusions, at least by certain definitions. However, if illusions they are, I think they are more akin to rainbows than unicorns. There is also, of course, the rather sticky problem of who/what is having the illusion. Can an illusion be self-aware and self-directing? If so, is it still reasonable to call it an illusion?

 

[RandFan]

I don't think we are in much disagreement. I think that such non-physical concepts as ego and soul may well be illusions, at least by certain definitions. However, if illusions they are, I think they are more akin to rainbows than unicorns. There is also, of course, the rather sticky problem of who/what is having the illusion. Can an illusion be self-aware and self-directing? If so, is it still reasonable to call it an illusion?

Thank you for that. You are correct. By illusion I don't mean that it doesn't exist. Only that it isn't quite what it seems to be.

As to who or what is having the illusion. It could be the homunculus in the cartesian theatre. This was once my belief. I think that it is now untenible. It is simply our brain having the illusion. It is an emergent property of an electro-chemical, biological computational machine.

And there is no ghost in the machine, IMO.

 

[cyborg]

Some people are alcoholics. The 'cure' for their disease is to simply stop drinking.
Other people are smokers. They aren't considered to have a disease the way alcoholics are, but the 'cure' is the same. They simply have to stop smoking.

Why is the "simply" not simple then?