Question to free will skeptics

[President Bush]

You don't need to explain how a specific choice was made in order to reason about all choices.

Do you think it is valid to reason about all possible choices and then apply that reasoning to human choice - which MUST be some specific instance of the general properties of choice?

The fallacy of mediocrity.

 

[The Man]

Then you are, by your understanding, either a robot as far as decisions are concerned or you might be lucky enough to have impulses that are entirely without control and therefore random.

No, that is your understanding, not mine. Your statement...

Do you think it is valid to reason about all possible choices and then apply that reasoning to human choice - which MUST be some specific instance of the general properties of choice?

I have said and agree that your statment is completely valid. However in applying our reasoning on all possible choices, or the general properties of choice, to a specific instance or condition of choice (namely human choice) certain elements or conditions may well arise that are not specifically dealt with in the general considerations. That is why it is a specific instance or condition, in that the general reasoning does not accurately describe all that is specifically relevant in that instance or variant. Should our application of general reasoning be in conflict with the reasoning of a specific instance or variant, then the general reasoning, specific reasoning or both need to be modified. General reasoning is not a mandate for the reasoning applied to a specific instance or variant. In fact reasoning flows more from the specific to the general application more then it does from the general application to any specific instance or variant. General reasoning is only a tool to help us consider specific variances we have not yet examined and to better understand those that we have examined.

Misuse follows words?

What?
Once again, the focus on terminology or words is yours not mine. Perhaps a look at the statements in question may make the development of the discussion clearer.

Free will is the basses of the ability to make a choice, until someone can determine how the human mind functions. They would need to determine precisely how thoughts and sentience occur as well as the factors and mechanisms involved in making a choice, in a repeatable experimentally verifiable fashion. Until that day arrives, at least for me, free will is the best explanation we have going. I would also fear the arrival of that day because we would then truly become biological robots with our source code out there for anyone to manipulate.

Your emotional reactions to certain terminology is irrelevant as to whether or not your self-understanding is accurate.

Calling yourself a 'robot' or a 'man' does not change what you are - just how you feel about the prospect of your existence.

My reaction was not to the terminology, but to the misuse of the technology that would certainly ensue.

My reaction and concern was for the misuse that would certainly occur, of the technology that would certainly be developed, should we be able to determine precisely how thoughts and sentience occur as well as the factors and mechanisms involved, not for any terminology.

I apologize if I did not make that clear until now.

 

[Jekyll]

No, Jekyll. All physical variables include the outcome of a random variable. In other words, you would include the same outcome of the variable.

Sorry for the lag in responding, but I still think you're cheating.

Now physical variables fix everything that isn't free will, including the indetermined, and your definition is circular.

 

[Robin]

Hm... Do you think that processes in your brain are possibly controlled by your consciousness?

Consciousness is a process in my brain. Other processes cause it and it, in turn, causes other processes in my brain.

And what does "being accessible to" mean on a practical level? What is the type of process that being accessible to describes?

Any action you do that you knew about beforehand was accessible to your consciousness. But if you flinch at something, you acted without conscious knowledge that you were about to do so.

It is pretty well established that the brain processes intentional actions differently to unintentional actions.

 

[cyborg]

The fallacy of mediocrity.

No.

ANY instance of a choice mechanism WILL BE restricted to what is afforded by general class.

To use the terms of your link one cannot magic up a way for humans not to be restricted to their biology just by demanding they different to animals.

 

[cyborg]

However in applying our reasoning on all possible choices, or the general properties of choice, to a specific instance or condition of choice (namely human choice) certain elements or conditions may well arise that are not specifically dealt with in the general considerations.

No. Specific conditions WILL arise. That is why they are specific.

What will NOT happen is that those specific conditions will not change the properties of the general system they are built upon.

 

[President Bush]

You don't need to explain how a specific choice was made in order to reason about all choices.

Do you think it is valid to reason about all possible choices and then apply that reasoning to human choice - which MUST be some specific instance of the general properties of choice?

The fallacy of mediocrity.

In formal terms, the fallacy is the assumption that any given member of a set must be limited to the attributes that are held in common with all other members of the set.

No.

ANY instance of a choice mechanism WILL BE restricted to what is afforded by general class.

You moved the goalposts... redefined what you said earlier about " all possible choices" to now: "ANY instance of a choice mechanism".

 

[cyborg]

You moved the goalposts...

No.

redefined what you said earlier about " all possible choices" to now: "ANY instance of a choice mechanism".

No.

There is no redefinition. Choices do not occur without choice mechanisms.

 

[President Bush]

Choices do not occur without choice mechanisms.

How do you know this?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Choices do not occur without choice mechanisms.

How do you know this?

How could a choice occur without an underlying mechanism (unless you are referring to completely random choice)? Are you arguing with the word mechanism?

~~ Paul

 

[cyborg]

He'd have to be: even with 'random' choice 'randomness' is the mechanism of choice.

 

[President Bush]

How could a choice occur without an underlying mechanism...

I dunno. I've made no such claim.

This is a skeptic's board, isn't it? cyborg made a claim in what appears to me to be most likely a circular argument.

I am onlly calling him on this. I am certainly not defending some 'god' position.

 

[cyborg]

cyborg made a claim in what appears to me to be most likely a circular argument.

Logic will circle itself endlessly unless you and I agree on some axioms of choice.

 

[President Bush]

Logic will circle itself endlessly unless you and I agree on some axioms of choice.

Nonsense. Just say what you mean. And don't be surprised should someone notice if you overstate things.

 

[Taffer]

Sorry for the lag in responding, but I still think you're cheating.

I fail to see why. Either randomness does not allow for free will, or you fix the outcomes of all random variables in both cases. If you think those random variables give rise to free will, you have to show how randomness can possibly be described as "will", let alone "free". If you do not think randomness affects "free will", then why worry about it at all? Simply fix the random variables for the sake of argument, so we can figure out what the "free will" mechanism is.

Now physical variables fix everything that isn't free will, including the indetermined, and your definition is circular.

A definition cannot be circular, only an argument. My definition is not, in any case, circular. If free will exists, it must manifest itself by breaking deterministic cause/effect. The only way to test this is by making the same choice a second time with exactly the same deterministic variables, including random elements.

 

[cyborg]

Nonsense.

No, it isn't.

Just say what you mean.

I have.

And don't be surprised should someone notice if you overstate things.

I have not overstated anything.

 

[President Bush]

No, it isn't.



I have.



I have not overstated anything.

OK. What about this, then?

Choices do not occur without choice mechanisms.

How do you know this?

 

[cyborg]

I don't need to 'know' this. It is the axiom of choice.

A choice occuring without a choice mechanism is not possible because that would also be a mechanism - namely the mechanism that behaves in a manner that is not like any other mechanism. It is excluded from the discussion by virtue of paradox.

You can call it circular if you like but then it would show up your understanding of logic as limited to only parroting fallacies without understanding the formulation of logical systems under which they are valid.

It is quite simple: in the study of 'choice' we formulate our logic with:

1) Sets of possible choices
2) Mechanisms by which choices are selected

You are free to disagree with this if you want but then you are just going to have to tell me what you mean by 'choice' - that word won't attain meaning through its six letters alone you know.

 

[Jekyll]

A definition cannot be circular, only an argument. My definition is not, in any case, circular.

Of course they can:
"Blub is everything that isn't what it isn't."
And that's exactly what your definition is doing, you're claiming that:
Free will is everything that varies when everything else is fixed.

If free will exists, it must manifest itself by breaking deterministic cause/effect. The only way to test this is by making the same choice a second time with exactly the same deterministic variables, including random elements.

But in this context, random means indeterminate, or at the very least undetermined.

When talking about particle decay the point at which a particle decays is not determinable in advance. There are no known parameters you can fix to control when it decays. It appears to breaks deterministic cause/effect in itself.

 

[The Man]

No. Specific conditions WILL arise. That is why they are specific..

I notice you truncated the quote you used just before the statement making precisely this point.

What will NOT happen is that those specific conditions will not change the properties of the general system they are built upon.

Let’s consider gravity as an example. Newtonian gravity and its’ properties of general reasoning seemed to fit most specific instances for quite sometime. When General Relativity was developed it fit most instances we could consider and explained some of the anomalous specific instances Newtonian Gravity could not. But even General Relativity can not explain the effects of gravity at the plank scale or at a singularity. Both of these specific instances require some change in the general properties of gravity as we understand them.