Free-Will

Post Reply New Topic

But under the exact same circumstances, you would always make the exact same choice

Not really. I've been faced with the same scenario several times and done different things.

For example, right now I want to go get an absinthe. The past several nights, I have gone and gotten an absinthe when I wanted one. Tonight, I will not.

I don't know why, but despite the fact that I want to go and get the drink, I won't do it.

Maybe, but that does not mean you did not make a choice. For myself, I don't define free will as being able to pick both x and y. I take it to mean picking x or y there is no possible world where a person picks two mutually exclusive options; so in essence you are asking someone to do that which is logically impossible, wholly apart from determinism and then declaring it to be a problem with free will. One will always pick either x or y in certain circumstances, if you know the outcome, it is predictable but predictable does not necessarily mean determined.

To see below, I'd think its then agreement on fundamentals and then debate over where the 'universe' ends and 'us' begins in a subjective sense.


I guess what I'm at a loss on - if we agree that one thing causes another and that nothing moves without being moved, the standard definition that people think of unravels. Now, if we're talking about a window into the character of a determined human being, that they - in a libertarian sense - were predestined to do everything they ever have and ever will do, but, the things they do still show their character and as a practical matter either need to be praised or meet reprisal; I'd agree that this is something that really can't go away, just that it seems a bit stilted to call it 'free will' in my mind since so many people still used the term 'free will' in a much different sense than perhaps the adept philosoph who might be able to think of a dozen esoteric definitions. Also, I'd debate that this is 'free will' in that sense as well because, yes - we get to 'be', experience 'us', but what we will ultimately want which leads to what we do; there's no sign that even these things were ever chosen or even could have been, more evidence to the contrary even it seems.

I still think that you are finding the libertarian definition unworkable and declaring the search over. There are plenty of definitions of free will that work with soft-determinism but most people who study determinism can reconcile that there are definitions of libertarianism that simply do not work. Hard-determinism contains a far reaching claim that 'every' action is determined, something that even an ounce of indeterminism would disprove. For myself, I don't mind determinism up to the point where it begins to render Liberterian conceptions of Compatibilism unworkable.

The problem I think many determinists have is that they find it highly intuative; a strange claim since libertarianism is usually described as the intuitive position. People actually find determinism sensible in that it seems a natural follow on from a deterministic universe. That said, it is possible and very practical to define free will within the compatibalist school. What I would challenge a determinist to accept is the fact that there are other definitions of free will that give libertarians essentially what they want from free will. No man is as free as he wants to be; but that does not mean he is not free. I would ask a determinist to accept that there are a range of logically coherent positions on the matter and that the matter has not been resolved; as such it seems quite strange to park all of your eggs in the 'it can't be solved' basket. The best position, I think, is a sort of agnostic compatibalism, that just accepts that free will, will be challenged by determinism and indeterminism but that there are a range of alternative positions that cause us to think that giving up on free will is dramatically premature.

Either it is possible to travel back in time by about 7 seconds to act on a current decision, or free will belongs with Casper the Friendly Ghost.

But looking at the whole "Mind" (that fictional thing either in the Heart or the Brain or the Nipples), free will can be assigned to at most an autonomic response extent, hence, the Nipples Win the vote for Free Will without a working Time-Machine.

Shoved up "The Ego Tunnel" by Thomas Metzingeragain (2009), again: http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/br ... you-decide

May as well do away with the "Self" too. Oh, darn, the science already has. Religion has another motive now to terminate Science with the Philosophy of Casper, the now angered ghost. (The felt used "User Illusion").

Tadzio

If that's the case though we're not debating whether there's more determinism or indeterminism at the root of things (which, I still have yet to get a fix on what inderminism is or how it could even exist from a starting point) but rather we're slicing and dicing words and definitions.

The established and typical uses of English that I grew up with:
Free Will - You have a choice in what you do.
Determinism - You don't.

It sounds like a person with free will would simply state that they had option A, option B, and option C - they chose option C. A determinist would argue that your past, present, and future are a preexisting structure, that you picked either A, B, or C long before you ever born - rather the big bang picked it from how the matter blew out. Yes there's chaos theory which simply tells us what's too far beyond our human ability to collect data (at least at this point prior to having....say....strong A.I.) but free will and probability still smack of the weatherman talking about 70% chance of rain on Tuesday - of which 70% chance of rain on Tuesday is not a real thing at all, its our best human fudging (again, we haven't broken chaos theory), if we had perfect information there's be a clean map of exactly where you'd get one inch, two inches, three inches, etc and it would map out perfectly. Its the same thing with human behavior, animal behavior, river or stream behavior, avalanch or wind behavior, moon planet or sun behavior, star behavior, etc..

Now, if we want to slice and dice words for the sake of definitions and say that we've redifined free will to exclude what its not (true indeterminism) but rather the ability to manifest what we are and follow our needs to the letter. However, to pursue that definition of 'free will' we'd absolutely need to put the old definition to rest or, come up with a better term that isn't already pre-loaded or polluted by previous meanings. If a 'car' is a easy put-out by esoteric redefinition and you decide to tell someone that you 'drove a car', they won't get the nod-nod-wink-wink but rather look at you like "Okay....thanks for sharing that....?..", because they were thinking automobile. Until that clears up we may be better off just sticking to the original meanings of the phrases or just calling alternate split theories what they are and by their own names rather than trying to recycle the old just yet.

It doesn't necessarily disprove free will. Much of our subconscious responses are conditioned consciously, so it is possible that the decisions our subconscious mind presents to our conscious mind are simply biased towards what we habitually choose and think.

While I agree with everything else you said above, I don't think we're wise to blow away this one. What I mean is that we have two realities to deal with - one, scientific reality, the second our subjective reality. For what our experience is it seems the most humane course and the best way of easing human suffering is to jam or clamp people's ability to manifest what and who they really are as little as possible. Another poster wrote something up about the fallout of atheism where big totalitarian governments and 'truth is whatever we tell you it is' reigns supreme. He's speaking of an early 20th century outlook which turned out to be horribly mistaken (mainly because it utterly underestimated the internal economics of the subjective), however we need to insert that caveat - heavily - and keep our thoughts arrange to the effect that science serves as a tool to make humanity more humane and gives us the ability to yield a better and better world for ourselves. To say self does not exist would need to be strongly reinforced by, preferably replaced with, stating what I said above; there's a scientific reality, there's a subjective reality, and we need to do everything in our power to come up with the most ethical win-win scenarios between these two. If one overpowers the other, the world becomes a worse place to the extent with which things go out of equilibrium. Then again yes, use of scientific knowledge should serve the subjective but it loops back where we want to make sure the subjective is applied justly and for the greatest good to the greatest many - which is more of a scientific sort of temperence.