Do you Think we have Free Will

[Copernicus]

In this thread, I have been defending the position that free will should be defined in a way that makes it compatible with determinism. This is the position taken by compatibilists such as Daniel Dennett. However, there are other defenses of compatibilism out there besides Dennett, and I think that Christian List is a rising young philosopher who has taken a slightly different approach, especially in his well-received book Why Free Will is Real. I have not read this book yet, but you can get an idea of how List approaches the debate in this relatively short essay by him:

Science Hasn’t Refuted Free Will​

Basically, he attacks the popular reductionist approach that people take when they try to claim that free will is an illusion or not real. Another word for this kind of attack on so-called "folk psychology" is Eliminative Materialism, although I don't know whether List gets into such terminology in his writings. List points out that the field of psychology has not been replaced by neuropsychological reductionism because there is a need to describe mental processes at a higher level just in order to be able to study them scientifically. Reductionism may help to explain some aspect of the high level mental activity, but it isn't helpful in answering every question that one has about that activity. To put it another way, being a physicist may explain a lot about the nuts and bolts of how objects interact with each other, but it isn't necessary to be a physicist to be a good auto mechanic. The field of physics isn't equipped to describe what went wrong with your car in a useful way, and you wouldn't go to a scientist to get it repaired. You would go to a mechanic. That's not to say that physicists have nothing useful to say about what makes automobiles run. Similarly, determinism is useful in describing the nature of how the material world behaves, but it is too low level to be useful in explaining how humans behave when they make choices.

Anyway, I recommend that people take a look at the essay cited above rather than just rely on my description of List's arguments.

 

[shunyadragon]

In this thread, I have been defending the position that free will should be defined in a way that makes it compatible with determinism. This is the position taken by compatibilists such as Daniel Dennett. However, there are other defenses of compatibilism out there besides Dennett, and I think that Christian List is a rising young philosopher who has taken a slightly different approach, especially in his well-received book Why Free Will is Real. I have not read this book yet, but you can get an idea of how List approaches the debate in this relatively short essay by him:

Science Hasn’t Refuted Free Will​

Basically, he attacks the popular reductionist approach that people take when they try to claim that free will is an illusion or not real. Another word for this kind of attack on so-called "folk psychology" is Eliminative Materialism, although I don't know whether List gets into such terminology in his writings. List points out that the field of psychology has not been replaced by neuropsychological reductionism because there is a need to describe mental processes at a higher level just in order to be able to study them scientifically. Reductionism may help to explain some aspect of the high level mental activity, but it isn't helpful in answering every question that one has about that activity. To put it another way, being a physicist may explain a lot about the nuts and bolts of how objects interact with each other, but it isn't necessary to be a physicist to be a good auto mechanic. The field of physics isn't equipped to describe what went wrong with your car in a useful way, and you wouldn't go to a scientist to get it repaired. You would go to a mechanic. That's not to say that physicists have nothing useful to say about what makes automobiles run. Similarly, determinism is useful in describing the nature of how the material world behaves, but it is too low level to be useful in explaining how humans behave when they make choices.

Anyway, I recommend that people take a look at the essay cited above rather than just rely on my description of List's arguments.

I reject Dennett's argument of "living in the moment" in the context of making choices Every moment is preceded by billions of moments; Your believing in him, because he talks in plain(?) language is the worst possible argument. What Dennett neglects is the documented limitations on our Freedom of choice, including the chain of choices one makes going back through life, and by the way for generations. The following relevant to issue of the limitations on our freedom pf choice." The following discusses some of the limitations on freedom of choice

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810017303562#:~:text=Free%20will%20means%20lack%20of%20constraint%20on%20choice.&text=Internal%20constraints%20limit%20one's%20mental%20ability%20to%20choose.&text=External%20constraints%20impose%20situational%20or%20social%20limits%20on%20choice.&text=Scientific%20and%20religious%20constraints%20can%20both%20reduce%20perceptions%20of%20free%20will.

Highlights​

• •
  Free will means lack of constraint on choice.
• •
  Internal constraints limit one’s mental ability to choose.
• •
  External constraints impose situational or social limits on choice.
• •
  Scientific and religious constraints can both reduce perceptions of free will.

Abstract​

Four experiments supported the hypothesis that ordinary people understand free will as meaning unconstrained choice, not having a soul. People consistently rated free will as being high unless reduced by internal constraints (i.e., things that impaired people’s mental abilities to make choices) or external constraints (i.e., situations that hampered people’s abilities to choose and act as they desired). Scientific paradigms that have been argued to disprove free will were seen as reducing, but usually not eliminating free will, and the reductions were because of constrained conscious choice. We replicated findings that a minority of people think lacking a soul reduces free will. These reductions in perceived free will were fully explained by reductions in people’s perceived abilities to make conscious decisions. Thus, some people do think you need a soul to have free will—but it is because they think you need a soul to make conscious decisions.

Introduction​

Scholars have debated for centuries about whether free will exists. The answer presumably depends on what “free will” means, and how ordinary people understand free will bears on the issue of meaning. Is the ordinary concept of free will infused with the unscientific, religious concept of a soul? Past work investigating the ordinary concept of free will has sometimes shown that people invoke the soul, but other times has found instead that degree of constraint is what matters. In this paper, we test the hypothesis that people see constraints on people’s abilities to choose as limiting free will. We propose that all things posited to limit free will, including souls and science, are seen as limiting free will because they are seen as constraining choice.

Read on , , ,

 

[shunyadragon]

In this thread, I have been defending the position that free will should be defined in a way that makes it compatible with determinism. This is the position taken by compatibilists such as Daniel Dennett. However, there are other defenses of compatibilism out there besides Dennett, and I think that Christian List is a rising young philosopher who has taken a slightly different approach, especially in his well-received book Why Free Will is Real. I have not read this book yet, but you can get an idea of how List approaches the debate in this relatively short essay by him:

Science Hasn’t Refuted Free Will​

Basically, he attacks the popular reductionist approach that people take when they try to claim that free will is an illusion or not real. Another word for this kind of attack on so-called "folk psychology" is Eliminative Materialism, although I don't know whether List gets into such terminology in his writings. List points out that the field of psychology has not been replaced by neuropsychological reductionism because there is a need to describe mental processes at a higher level just in order to be able to study them scientifically. Reductionism may help to explain some aspect of the high level mental activity, but it isn't helpful in answering every question that one has about that activity. To put it another way, being a physicist may explain a lot about the nuts and bolts of how objects interact with each other, but it isn't necessary to be a physicist to be a good auto mechanic. The field of physics isn't equipped to describe what went wrong with your car in a useful way, and you wouldn't go to a scientist to get it repaired. You would go to a mechanic. That's not to say that physicists have nothing useful to say about what makes automobiles run. Similarly, determinism is useful in describing the nature of how the material world behaves, but it is too low level to be useful in explaining how humans behave when they make choices.

Anyway, I recommend that people take a look at the essay cited above rather than just rely on my description of List's arguments.

Of course science has not entirely refuted Free Will, but science has documented the constraints and limitations on our freedoms of choice.

Se post #582,

 

[Copernicus]

I reject Dennett's argument of "living in the moment" in the context of making choices Every moment is preceded by billions of moments; Your believing in him, because he talks in plain(?) language is the worst possible argument. What Dennett neglects is the documented limitations on our Freedom of choice, including the chain of choices one makes going back through life, and by the way for generations. The following relevant to issue of the limitations on our freedom pf choice." The following discusses some of the limitations on freedom of choice

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810017303562#:~:text=Free%20will%20means%20lack%20of%20constraint%20on%20choice.&text=Internal%20constraints%20limit%20one's%20mental%20ability%20to%20choose.&text=External%20constraints%20impose%20situational%20or%20social%20limits%20on%20choice.&text=Scientific%20and%20religious%20constraints%20can%20both%20reduce%20perceptions%20of%20free%20will.

Highlights​

• •
  Free will means lack of constraint on choice.
• •
  Internal constraints limit one’s mental ability to choose.
• •
  External constraints impose situational or social limits on choice.
• •
  Scientific and religious constraints can both reduce perceptions of free will.

Abstract​

Four experiments supported the hypothesis that ordinary people understand free will as meaning unconstrained choice, not having a soul. People consistently rated free will as being high unless reduced by internal constraints (i.e., things that impaired people’s mental abilities to make choices) or external constraints (i.e., situations that hampered people’s abilities to choose and act as they desired). Scientific paradigms that have been argued to disprove free will were seen as reducing, but usually not eliminating free will, and the reductions were because of constrained conscious choice. We replicated findings that a minority of people think lacking a soul reduces free will. These reductions in perceived free will were fully explained by reductions in people’s perceived abilities to make conscious decisions. Thus, some people do think you need a soul to have free will—but it is because they think you need a soul to make conscious decisions.

Introduction​

Scholars have debated for centuries about whether free will exists. The answer presumably depends on what “free will” means, and how ordinary people understand free will bears on the issue of meaning. Is the ordinary concept of free will infused with the unscientific, religious concept of a soul? Past work investigating the ordinary concept of free will has sometimes shown that people invoke the soul, but other times has found instead that degree of constraint is what matters. In this paper, we test the hypothesis that people see constraints on people’s abilities to choose as limiting free will. We propose that all things posited to limit free will, including souls and science, are seen as limiting free will because they are seen as constraining choice.

Read on , , ,

OK, thanks for the feedback, but you are replying to a post in which I addressed Christian List's defense of compatibilism. List's thesis really wasn't about Dennett, although he admires Dennett's work on the subject. I don't know about the article you cited, but I'm not seeing much direct relevance to the content of List's essay.

There are a lot of problems that I see with the content of your linked reference, beginning with the fact that it doesn't describe a valid method for investigating linguistic usage. Generally speaking, linguistic investigators don't survey people on what they think words or expressions mean. Rather, they look at actual usage patterns that occur when people aren't consciously focused on the expressions under investigation. That tends to give more objective and accurate information on actual usage, as opposed to opinions about what people think usage ought to be. Also, the question of a "soul" does not have anything to do with compatibilism, but it seems to be an important topic to the authors of your reference.

 

[Massimo2002]

It's yes and no sometimes we are powerless to control certain things about life and other things we are in full control over. But most people don't want to hear that because everyone wants to be in control of everything in there life. And I think that people who are brain dead and who have certain severe mental Illnesses do not have the free will to do anything.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's yes and no sometimes we are powerless to control certain things about life and other things we are in full control over. But most people don't want to hear that because everyone wants to be in control of everything in there life. And I think that people who are brain dead and who have certain severe mental Illnesses do not have the free will to do anything.

I do noy believe severe mental illness nor brain dead is relevant to the issue (sarcasm alert???). There are many mental illnesses that limit human abilities to do otherwise, The list is long. and there are many factors of determinism that limit our ability to do otherwise.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The list is long. and there are many factors of determinism that limit our ability to do otherwise..

I understand the context in which you use the word "determinism", but it's a bit of a misnomer
really, because the future HAS to be determined by SOMEthing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's yes and no sometimes we are powerless to control certain things about life and other things we are in full control over.

That would be the case whether the will is free or determined.

You wish to complicate the issue by bringing up whether a person wants to want?

The issue is whether a person chooses what to want. He will act on his wants whether they are determined for him by unconscious neural mechanism or whether they are uncaused and he chooses them.

All that has been demonstrated, in your "experiment", is that the predictor can be right all the time. Nothing to do with free-will at all.

It has everything to do with free will. If one can predict behavior perfectly, then the desire and the action that ensues are deterministic. The opposite, however, is not true. The inability to make such predictions doesn't indicate free will but it is consistent with it.

Imagine somebody accurately predicting everything that you would say and do today. Maybe they even wrote it out as a script and portrayed you going about your day, and produced a video. Then, they filmed you going about your day, and the two videos matched perfectly. It could be said that that person has figured out how your brain works, and that it works deterministically, just like the earth orbiting the sun while spinning on its axis, which can also be predicted accurately.

Of course the earth is (probably) unconscious, but even were it to awaken and think, and all it ever wanted was to keep doing that for as long as possible, we could say that its actions (and now its will as well) are not freely chosen by it. Perfect predictability is the sine qua non of determinism. We have to get to the subatomic level to encounter indeterminism, where we CANNOT specify the moment a given radioactive nucleus will decay.

And that fact alone doesn't define indeterminism. Indeterminism isn't the same as we can't make the determination, since that might be due to incomplete information. That was Einstein's position. He was an inveterate determinist, and initially insisted that "God doesn't play dice with the universe," and that there was some hidden variable that, if detected and study, would restore predictability to the decay process.

Now, you might wonder how the predictor knows .. but that is another issue, to that which I was discussing.

We know how the predictor knows. He has information that allows him to know. He has solved the problem by identifying and measuring the relevant variables and accurately deducing future states. We might not know his algorithm and thus can't reproduce what he does, but we know that HE KNOWS how to do that because of his accurate results. If a blackjack player hits hands of 12-20 and NEVER busts, we KNOW that he knows what card is coming next. If every 20 he hits gets an ace, every 19 gets and ace or deuce, every 18 an ace, deuce or trey, we know that he knows what's coming.

you are talking about a different subject. i.e. psychological disturbances that a person might be affected by

I was discussing normal minds with conflicting desires to illustrate that even that state with internal conflict can be deterministic. That doesn't mean that these dueling desires ARE determined by blind physiological processes, merely that indecision doesn't imply indeterminacy.

now you are talking about physical problems in the brain

What I wrote was, "Even this may be and likely is all playing out according to the laws of physics as the axons of neurons depolarize as ion flow and send neurotransmitters across synapses." That's how normal brains (and abnormal ones) work. Here we see an action potential on the left moving down the axon, reaching the presynaptic terminal, which releases neurotransmitters, which then flow across the synapse to the next neuron and initiate depolarization and a second action potential there. This is how the brain works. I don't see room for free will there. Where would it come from and how would it modify this seemingly automatic and deterministic process?

we do INDEED have the capacity to make choices of our own free-will

You don't know that. You believe that by faith. That is not knowledge.

You can go on about it being an illusion and what-not .. but there is no real scientific basis for such an opinion.

Yes, there is, although the evidence isn't conclusive, and I suspect that you are unaware of it by design.

I just gave you some evidence with that diagram and description of neuronal transmission and signaling, and I'm confident you put up defenses (confirmation bias) to prevent you from understanding what it implies. You can't make a man understand what he has a stake in not understanding. Nobody can make you look at the above or make you try to understand it. Your cooperation is required.

There is, however, no basis better than faith for you to rule out determinacy. As I said, what is believed by faith is not knowledge.

I understand the context in which you use the word "determinism", but it's a bit of a misnomer
really, because the future HAS to be determined by SOMEthing.

Yes, our deliberate actions are preceded the will to execute them, but you're still missing the crux of the issue, which is the question of whether the will is determined or free.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, thanks for the feedback, but you are replying to a post in which I addressed Christian List's defense of compatibilism. List's thesis really wasn't about Dennett, although he admires Dennett's work on the subject. I don't know about the article you cited, but I'm not seeing much direct relevance to the content of List's essay.

There are a lot of problems that I see with the content of your linked reference, beginning with the fact that it doesn't describe a valid method for investigating linguistic usage. Generally speaking, linguistic investigators don't survey people on what they think words or expressions mean. Rather, they look at actual usage patterns that occur when people aren't consciously focused on the expressions under investigation. That tends to give more objective and accurate information on actual usage, as opposed to opinions about what people think usage ought to be. Also, the question of a "soul" does not have anything to do with compatibilism, but it seems to be an important topic to the authors of your reference.

The source did not say the question of the soul had any relevance You are side steping the substance of the article.

You are not addressing my objections to your support for Dennett's beliefs. Please reread and try again.

I reject Dennett's argument of "living in the moment" in the context of making choices Every moment is preceded by billions of moments; Your Free will - Wikipedia in him, because he talks in plain(?) language is the worst possible argument. What Dennett neglects is the documented limitations on our Freedom of choice, including the chain of choices one makes going back through life, and by the way for generations. The following relevant to issue of the limitations on our freedom pf choice." The following discusses some of the limitations on freedom of choice.

The factors limiting our Freedom of choice have been well documented as internal and external factors and cited in references,

Free will - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Recently,[when?] Claudio Costa developed a neocompatibilist theory based on the causal theory of action that is complementary to classical compatibilism. According to him, physical, psychological and rational restrictions can interfere at different levels of the causal chain that would naturally lead to action. Correspondingly, there can be physical restrictions to the body, psychological restrictions to the decision, and rational restrictions to the formation of reasons (desires plus beliefs) that should lead to what we would call a reasonable action. The last two are usually called "restrictions of free will". The restriction at the level of reasons is particularly important since it can be motivated by external reasons that are insufficiently conscious to the agent. One example was the collective suicide led by Jim Jones. The suicidal agents were not conscious that their free will have been manipulated by external, even if ungrounded, reasons.[130]

A reasonable example of everyday influence of deterministic limiting factors of our ability "choose otherwise" is the cultural and religious influence on our choices of food and clothing. We may make choices within the limits, but cultural and religious limits do in fact limit our choices. Some cultural and religious limits such as in Islam severely limit the choices of clothing.

 

[shunyadragon]

I understand the context in which you use the word "determinism", but it's a bit of a misnomer
really, because the future HAS to be determined by SOMEthing.

You need to explain further, because your use of misnomer is a misnomer and does not address the issues at hand,

As far as your view of science when you negated the relevance of science preciously I have a question: Do you accept the sciences of evolution. Part of the scientific argument of the limits of our freedom of choice is based on the sciences of evolution necessary for the survival of the species,

 

[muhammad_isa]

It has everything to do with free will. If one can predict behavior perfectly, then the desire and the action that ensues are deterministic..

Mmm .. I've just commented on the word "determined" .. the future HAS to be determined by SOMEthing!

Whether one can predict or not, has NOTHING to do with whether the person freely chose .. it
is a common fallacy.

As you think otherwise, please explain the mechanism which is forcing a person to do something against their will. There IS none!

Imagine somebody accurately predicting everything that you would say and do today..

Why?

Of course the earth is (probably) unconscious, but even were it to awaken and think, and all it ever wanted was to keep doing that for as long as possible, we could say that its actions (and now its will as well) are not freely chosen by it. Perfect predictability is the sine qua non of determinism. We have to get to the subatomic level to encounter indeterminism, where we CANNOT specify the moment a given radioactive nucleus will decay.

Again, you are diverging to another issue entirely.
Before we/you start to get into quantum mechanics, you need to stop & think.
WHY is a person being forced to act against their will, just because an agent can predict what they will choose?

You need to explain it .. it's a concept of the layman, and NOT one of Physics professor.
Remember, you have already agreed that it is possible that a person can choose what they want
(i.e. they could have chosen otherwise if they had wanted to).

We know how the predictor knows..

Do we?

He has information that allows him to know.

OK, seems reasonable.

He has solved the problem by identifying and measuring the relevant variables and accurately deducing future states.

No .. I don't believe that. I don't believe in such "fortune-telling" .. there is too many variables for accurate prediction.

You don't know that. You believe that by faith. That is not knowledge.

No .. I know/believe that, just as the majority believe that .. it is borne out by law around the globe.

There is, however, no basis better than faith for you to rule out determinacy. As I said, what is believed by faith is not knowledge.

As I have previously said, the future MUST be determined by something.
..and common-sense tells us, that our choices are part of that determination.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you accept the sciences of evolution..

The basic core elementary biology, as in inheritance of genes etc. , of course I do.
..but all of the extended hypotheses that result in "Darwinism", absolutely NOT.

Part of the scientific argument of the limits of our freedom of choice is based on the sciences of evolution necessary for the survival of the species,

Well, that's fine.
..but this arises due to a very specific definition of free-will.

The science/religion debate usually is about a more common definition.
i.e. An agent is free to choose, if they could choose otherwise if they WANT to choose otherwise

Now, if you want (sic) to ramble on about why the agent wants to choose what he does,
then that is another discussion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course the earth is (probably) unconscious, but even were it to awaken and think, and all it ever wanted was to keep doing that for as long as possible, we could say that its actions (and now its will as well) are not freely chosen by it. Perfect predictability is the sine qua non of determinism. We have to get to the subatomic level to encounter indeterminism, where we CANNOT specify the moment a given radioactive nucleus will decay.

And that fact alone doesn't define indeterminism. Indeterminism isn't the same as we can't make the determination, since that might be due to incomplete information. That was Einstein's position. He was an inveterate determinist, and initially insisted that "God doesn't play dice with the universe," and that there was some hidden variable that, if detected and study, would restore predictability to the decay process.

The concept of indeterminism at the Quantum scale is often misunderstood. It actually true that throughout the timing of cause and effect events outcomes are random, but in both the macro world and the micro world follow predictable patterns.

 

[shunyadragon]

The basic core elementary biology, as in inheritance of genes etc. , of course I do.
..but all of the extended hypotheses that result in "Darwinism", absolutely NOT.

This is where you your selective rejection of science biases your perspective on both evolution and the question of human will free or determined.

Well, that's fine.
..but this arises due to a very specific definition of free-will.

Yes, based on your beliefs there is only one definition of Free Will, but as referenced there is NO one accepted definition of the nature of human will and the nature of our choices.

As with everything one simplistic one-sided biased view does not reflect reality.

The science/religion debate usually is about a more common definition.

NO, the science is based on the evidence, and not a religious 'belief.'

i.e. An agent is free to choose, if they could choose otherwise if they WANT to choose otherwise

So circular it bites you in the butt.

Now, if you want (sic) to ramble on about why the agent wants to choose what he does,
then that is another discussion.

Your circular rambling is the issue. I base my view on the evidence not religious beliefs, and I have not addressed the question why.

 

[wellwisher]

* In this context Free Will is defined as the ability to make choices that are not fully determined by past events nor fully random

I know this is a hard question and that nobody claims to have 100% certanity..... but in your opinion what is more likely to be true?... do you think humans have the aility to make choices ?

The easiest way to answer this question is to first reduce the scenario to simplicity, instead of asking the question in the context of the complexity of modern life. The former higher level of complexity makes analysis, lines in the sand, fuzzy, before we even start.

The first mention of free will and choice is connected to symbolism of Adam and Eve in paradise. This would have been symbolic when humans were still natural and governed by natural human instinct. Life was very simple and it was based on human animal instinct leading us to what is needed; paradise. Sustained paradise would need humans to follow this test prove instinct, developed over eons, without will and choice, so we do not screw it up.

Free will in this simplified scenario, starts with just two humans, without any huge cultural superego mob or library to add external bias, including human parents. Paradise would imply the simple case of two people in paradise, allowing their instinctive choices, to lead and thereby always add up to the predetermined bliss. Any willful act would add a wild card, that could add sand to the gears of the naturally predetermined and coordinated ecosystem bliss.

Will and Choice, added to the bliss would have no integrating precedent; would add sand to gears of bliss; an imperfection. The change to will and choice occurs at the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This tree was labeled taboo. A taboo in paradise would not imply law but a natural instinctive fear to stay away, thereby keeping you in bliss by avoiding a danger; do not each the poison mushroom but rather eat the peach because it is heavenly.

Ignoring the fear to eat the apple, would need will within paradise. This choice to eat the scary apple, was not part of the instinctive set needed for the predetermined bliss in paradise. Instead, it added a wild card that would end paradise and instinct; ignore the helpful fear leading to death in the world; Tree of Life was taken away. Fear was no longer part of the helpful deflection avoidance needed for bliss.

After leaving paradise, instead of following natural instinct, leading back to paradise and bliss; tree of life was sealed, now they would need to willfully follow the laws of good and evil, from the superego of culture. These new choices, which also needed will power, would gradually repress the innate determinism of their previous paradise instincts. This learning began as willful; fight the deterministic inertia of the DNA and nature. But as instinct became more and more buried and less and less deterministic, the laws of the superego would became more deterministic; rules and punishment to funnel the herd. Today, within the context of the superego of culture; sum of human knowledge, it is not clear if what we have read or learned, is behind everything we do; superego determinism and some residual instinctive determinism like hunger and thirst.

One continued exception from day one, is outside the box innovation, such as ignore God given or natural fear by Adam and Eve. This is not fully automatic or predetermined, since anything outside the box, often requires lots of time to develop, against the odds, against social pressures and often has to follow a convoluted path to the final solution. This path takes will and determination with nobody showing the way; past or present. The idea of fate could make this deterministic if you believe in such.

Im modern times, rediscovering natural human instinct, would be willful since it is buried away; tree of life is sealed. Finding that is not part of the superego, which is more geared to the artificial or manmade needed for culture. There are many ways for the modern human to express will and choice, if they willfully choose to go outside the box. This is not as common as staying in the box of determinism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The concept of indeterminism at the Quantum scale is often misunderstood. It actually true that throughout the timing of cause and effect events outcomes are random, but in both the macro world and the micro world follow predictable patterns.

Wouldn't you agree that at the subatomic scale, our predictions are statistical? I don't think that cause and effect apply to a process like radioactive decay.

But yes, if we congregate a great number of events, their collective behavior becomes increasingly deterministic. I don't know what the individual atoms in this table here are doing, but collectively, they aren't doing anything. I don't know how the roll of a fair die will turn out, but I've a pretty good idea how the results will distribute across the six possibilities after a billion rolls.

the future HAS to be determined by SOMEthing!

That isn't the issue. The issue is whether the will is determined by something. I already made that comment. You didn't acknowledge it much less try to rebut it.

Whether one can predict or not, has NOTHING to do with whether the person freely chose

I already rebutted that. Once again, there was no acknowledgement that you even saw that counterargument much less attempted to falsify it.

please explain the mechanism which is forcing a person to do something against their will.

I made no such claim. By and large, whenever possible, we execute the desires of our will. You don't seem to be able to go back one step to the generation of that will.

Why?

That was in response to, "Imagine somebody accurately predicting everything that you would say and do today." Then don't. Like I said, a man can't be forced to learn that which he has a stake in not learning. Your cooperation is required for another to teach you.

I don't believe that. I don't believe in such "fortune-telling" .. there is too many variables for accurate prediction.

If you had indulged me in my thought experiment, you would have seen that it was a hypothetical. I also don't believe in fortune telling. But if somebody could do that perfectly like the Abrahamic deity is said to be able to do, then ... never mind. You don't deem to have much interest in engaging my arguments.

I know/believe that

That was in response to, "You don't know that. You believe that by faith. That is not knowledge."

Once again, we see the ineffectual habit of failing to attempt to falsify claims and arguments and simply repeating a claim already refuted. That's a dead end, an end to dialectic, which ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim.

Given that behavior, my position remains unchanged. You believe it, but you do not know it. You'd need to convincingly explain how you know that to have a chance at changing the mind of a critical thinker - a person that you cannot influence with unsupported claims.

Maybe I can help you understand what that says, but I'll need your cooperation and attention to do that. I can't make you read the following, nor can I help you to understand if you don't try.

To understand what dialectic is and why debate ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim, consider a courtroom trial. A couple of attorneys attempt to falsify one another's argument with counterarguments. In a court of law, that begins with an opening statement by the prosecution and a theory of a crime. If this argument is convincing to a jury and not successfully rebutted, it's time for a verdict: guilty. But perhaps the defense can poke a hole in that theory, maybe by offering an alibi for the defendant. Perhaps there is cell tower ping data suggesting that the defendant wasn't present at the scene of the crime.

If this isn't rebutted, it becomes the last plausible unrebutted argument, and the jury is ready to vote for acquittal. But then, the prosecution produces photos of the suspect near the scene of the crime around the time it was committed, resuscitating the original theory of guilt. And once again, if this cannot be successfully rebutted - if it cannot be shown that the prosecution cannot be right - the debate is over and the jury able to convict. This is dialectic. Any other form of discussion is useless in deciding matters. And if an attorney doesn't even try to rebut his counterpart, his client loses the case.

Presently, you're playing the role of the defense attorney who never tries to show why the prosecutor is wrong, but instead, just repeats that his client isn't guilty. Guess how that turns out. It's the same for you here. You forfeit the argument.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is where you your selective rejection of science biases your perspective on both evolution and the question of human will free or determined.

No, I don't think so.
The core concepts have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas many modern hypotheses have not.

Yes, based on your beliefs there is only one definition of Free Will..

Umm .. there can be as many definitions as you like .. but there is no point talking across each other.
One needs to agree on a particular definition, and stick to it, in order to have meaningful debate.

NO, the science is based on the evidence..

"the science" means nothing without qualification of what you are referring to.

So circular it bites you in the butt..

Perhaps you would like to explain why?

I base my view on the evidence..

..as do I.
I have yet to see concrete evidence that my assertions are wrong.
i.e. that free-will as per the common definition is an illusion

 

[muhammad_isa]

That isn't the issue. The issue is whether the will is determined by something..

Well, of course it is !?

I already rebutted that. Once again, there was no acknowledgement that you even saw that counterargument much less attempted to falsify it..

You said "It has everything to do with free will. If one can predict behavior perfectly, then the desire and the action that ensues are deterministic."

..and what does "deterministic" mean, to you?
To me, it means that our actions were determined by something.
..and you are implying that they did NOT have any choice in the matter, as you claim they had no free-will, as an agent predicted correctly.

I stress AGAIN .. THAT IS FALSE!!!

How do you KNOW that a person didn't have any choice, just because a person predicted correctly what they were going to choose?

The reason why we are going around in circles, is because you, and many others, cannot grasp the fact
that you CANNOT rule out that the action was actually determined by our CHOICE.
You have not presented any evidence to the contrary .. you just state it as if it must be.

I made no such claim. By and large, whenever possible, we execute the desires of our will. You don't seem to be able to go back one step to the generation of that will..

I can "go back", but I see that that is not the issue .. see above.

Once again, we see the ineffectual habit of failing to attempt to falsify claims and arguments and simply repeating a claim already refuted. That's a dead end, an end to dialectic, which ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim.

I can understand what you are saying, and think I know why you are saying it.
..but it appears that you can't understand what I am saying.

To understand what dialectic is and why debate ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim, consider a courtroom trial. A couple of attorneys attempt to falsify one another's argument with counterarguments. In a court of law, that begins with an opening statement by the prosecution and a theory of a crime. If this argument is convincing to a jury and not successfully rebutted, it's time for a verdict: guilty. But perhaps the defense can poke a hole in that theory, maybe by offering an alibi for the defendant. Perhaps there is cell tower ping data suggesting that the defendant wasn't present at the scene of the crime.

If this isn't rebutted, it becomes the last plausible unrebutted argument, and the jury is ready to vote for acquittal. But then, the prosecution produces photos of the suspect near the scene of the crime around the time it was committed, resuscitating the original theory of guilt. And once again, if this cannot be successfully rebutted - if it cannot be shown that the prosecution cannot be right - the debate is over and the jury able to convict. This is dialectic. Any other form of discussion is useless in deciding matters. And if an attorney doesn't even try to rebut his counterpart, his client loses the case.

Presently, you're playing the role of the defense attorney who never tries to show why the prosecutor is wrong, but instead, just repeats that his client isn't guilty. Guess how that turns out. It's the same for you here. You forfeit the argument.

I'm sorry, but that story has little to do with the topic.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, I don't think so.

OK, that is what you believe

The core concepts have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas many modern hypotheses have not.

Nothing has been proven, particularly science your posts have offered nothing more than what you believe.

Umm .. there can be as many definitions as you like .. but there is no point talking across each other.
One needs to agree on a particular definition, and stick to it, in order to have meaningful debate.

You, of course, do not agree, but I have presented a number of sources that describe the different definitions and perspectives of what is human will and the nature of choices. All you have done is assert one and only one definition from your personal perspective.

I agree with the academic and scientific understanding of the nature of human will.

"the science" means nothing without qualification of what you are referring to.

The science I am referring to is the academic and scientific references based on the objective verifiable evidence.

Your view is based on a selective consideration of science based on a religous agenda.

Perhaps you would like to explain why?

I DID NOT address the question why, because it represents a wide range of subjective philosophical and theological considerations of the question why.

I based my view on the academic and scientific evidence of what is and not why.

..as do I.
I have yet to see concrete evidence that my assertions are wrong.

I have cited numerous academic references to support my view. as you stated you have a selective biased consideration of science based on your singular religious perspective. My citations are not assertions they are based on accademic references which you avoid.

i.e. that free-will as per the common definition is an illusion

As referenced you simplistic singular definition based on your religious agenda does not reflect the range of definitions and academic references concerning the nature of human will.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I have presented a number of sources that describe the different definitions and perspectives of what is human will and the nature of choices..

Psychological treatises, you mean?
Fine .. I accept psychology as a branch of science.

All you have done is assert one and only one definition from your personal perspective.

No .. all I am doing, is pointing out the COMMON definition of free-will, as the COMMON person
understands.
One only needs to delve into science, when specializing on a topic .. such as psychology, for example.

Many others here, including you, are bringing up "determinism", in the context of a "known future"
equating to loss of choice for the chooser.
I merely point out, that this is based on a fallacy. A very common fallacy.

I agree with the academic and scientific understanding of the nature of human will.

As I say, I have no problem with that.

The science I am referring to is the academic and scientific references based on the objective verifiable evidence.

That is merely a bunch of big-words with no content.

Your view is based on a selective consideration of science based on a religous agenda.

Mmm .. another person telling me how I think.

I DID NOT address the question why, because it represents a wide range of subjective philosophical and theological considerations of the question why.

I'm none the wiser..