Do you Think we have Free Will

[Nakosis]

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.

Do you have a reference for this?
I'm asking because I had read this before a couple of years ago but haven't been able to locate it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you have a reference for this?
I'm asking because I had read this before a couple of years ago but haven't been able to locate it.

I will work on it,

 

[Nakosis]

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.

No, obviously our will is determined by us, the brain.
Determinism has to be predictable by past events. In most cases this is true. However this is not necessarily true in the case of humans.

Humans can imagine any past, present or future. What we imagine can be based on the real past an physical properties or it can be based on fantasy and "magic" (events which don't follow the laws of nature.

When we consider a course of action, we can take past events as best we know them or we can a past, present of future which never existed. Which was not part of the deterministic universe and base that decision on something that never existed until we imagined its existence.

It's our ability to imagine an alternate reality and make choices based on situations/circumstance which never existed that separates us from an otherwise determined universe.

So nothing is determined prior to us going through the process of re-imagining reality to whatever degree we choose and making a decision base on something we imagine which has no necessary to connection actual past events prior to the entire process of us making a decision.

 

[Balthazzar]

I'll tell you what I know ... I base my decisions on something every time I choose.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I can understand what you are saying

I see no evidence of that, but what difference would that make even if correct if you don't rebut? I've already explained that since you don't make arguments (claims are not arguments, although they can be the conclusions of arguments) or refute the arguments of others, no further progress is possible, and so I bid you farewell and thank you for your good cheer. You explained your beliefs without supporting them, and you've dismissed my arguments by failing to acknowledge much less address them, so there's nothing left for either of us to say.

 

[robocop (actually)]

This is the view of Libet's old work. I gave references of more recent work that demonstrated that "Limited
free will is a better alternate explanation, and you have failed to respond.


Does not make sense.

It doesnt make sense because it's a whole book that I wrote. I cannot summarize.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I've already explained that since you don't make arguments (claims are not arguments, although they can be the conclusions of arguments) or refute the arguments of others, no further progress is possible, and so I bid you farewell.

Really?
A few posts ago, you said "Nothing can change your mind, whereas I'm amenable to evidence. If I'm wrong and that can be demonstrate convincingly, my mind will change."

How can you say "I don't make arguments" ?
What do you think I've been doing for the last 36 hours .. writing one-liners?
No, I've been trying to convey to you how the compatiblists viewpoint is not, as you put it,
"incoherent".

A few others in this thread have also added their helpful ways of explaining it too.

You explained your beliefs without supporting them.

That is ALSO false!

..and you've dismissed my arguments by failing to acknowledge much less address them, so there's nothing left for either of us to say..

Well, you wish to take us all on a "wild-goose-chase", and convince us all that free-will is an illusion,
and "science says so", and anything you say must be wrong.

Personally, I would not back out of a debate, unless the person I was debating with was rude, or
I can see that I was wrong .. and admitted such.
..but whatever..

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How can you say "I don't make arguments" ?

OK. What was your argument in support of your claim that will is free and not determined? I don't remember seeing one, just that that is what you believe.

On the other hand, I've argued that neither possibility can be ruled in or out at this time. You haven't offered a counterargument. You didn't even reject the argument. You ignored it. Remember, a counterargument, or rebuttal, or refutation is an argument that if sound, falsifies the prior argument. That was the purpose of the courtroom analogy, which you probably didn't read. It was an illustration of dialectic, or the process in which critical thinkers resolve differences of opinion by showing the problem with ideas with which they don't agree. You don't do that.

That is ALSO false!

Here's a nice example. That was your entire reply to, "You explained your beliefs without supporting them." A rebuttal would be an argument that falsified my claim. One example of you supporting your belief would do that.

But you don't do that. You don't even try after being exhorted to. You just dissent as you did here. That's not sufficient.

you wish to take us all on a "wild-goose-chase", and convince us all that free-will is an illusion,

You still haven't understood my position, but that's not surprising since you've never tried to falsify it.

"science says so"

I didn't say that, either. Perhaps if you had addressed what I actually did say when you saw it, you would know what it is I DID say.

You: "You can go on about it being an illusion and what-not .. but there is no real scientific basis for such an opinion."
Me: "Yes, there is, although the evidence isn't conclusive, and I suspect that you are unaware of it by design."
You: <crickets>

What do my words mean? You thought that they meant "science says so" that "free-will is an illusion." Of course, had you addressed my comment, you might have avoided that confusion.

But you don't do that. You just ignore and then mis-paraphrase. You're spinning your wheels doing that. You make no progress, and never will until you learn to engage your collocutor in the manner I've specified.

I don't expect you to acknowledge understanding that, either. This point will go unacknowledged and ununderstood like everything that has preceded it.

And it's too bad. Not everybody had a university education and honed critical thinking skills, and you appear to be one. But you have the chance to do a little better here and now just by engaging me and allowing me to teach some of you what I have learned.

But you don't even try. This method seems to have no value to you, and you would be correct to assume that acquiring it would be a threat to your belief by faith.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK. What was your argument in support of your claim that will is free and not determined? I don't remember seeing one, just that that is what you believe..

Hello again.. nice to "see" you

On the other hand, I've argued that neither possibility can be ruled in or out at this time. You haven't offered a counterargument. You didn't even reject the argument. You ignored it..

Right, OK..
I assume you are referring to a "determined future", as in the wiki article:-

Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable.
...
Some philosophers have maintained that the entire universe is a single determinate system, while others identify more limited determinate systems. Another common debate topic is whether determinism and free will can coexist; compatibilism and incompatibilism represent the opposing sides of this debate.
Determinism

I think the above covers the topic which we have been discussing .. right?
I do not reject the concept of a "determinate system", but would fall in to the latter group of "limited".

The counterargument that I present, is the one that I continually repeat.
i.e. that knowledge of the series of events we call the future, does not necessarily imply lack of free-will

..or putting it another way (in the jargon), a "determined future" does not affect free-will.
OK .. that is a statement, and one you do not agree with, so I need to explain further (try again to explain).

It seems to you that a person loses their choice, as there appears to be "no choice" due to the fact
that they MUST choose the determined choice .. am I right, so far?

Well, this is incorrect .. a fallacy .. because although that appears to be the case at first glance, that
does not take into account the fact that the reason why the person chooses the determined path
could be that they WANT to choose it, and choose it of their own free-will.

There is nothing sinister about that .. such as it being an illusion .. it is just that its difficult to get your around it.
..and that is probably because we all have a perception of time, which firmly suggests that the passage of time cannot be violated .. and so it MUST BE that the determined path is what is causing the person to choose.
..but in reality, that is not necessarily the case.

OK .. you can turn round and say that I haven't proved anything .. which I haven't.
I am only trying to explain why people believe a common fallacy to be true.

I doubt that a page of complicated looking boolean/logic notation in mathematics would help,
in any case.

Remember, a counterargument, or rebuttal, or refutation is an argument that if sound, falsifies the prior argument. That was the purpose of the courtroom analogy, which you probably didn't read. It was an illustration of dialectic, or the process in which critical thinkers resolve differences of opinion by showing the problem with ideas with which they don't agree. You don't do that..

It's easy to criticise .. but what do you want .. a page of jargon that hardly anybody would understand?

You still haven't understood my position, but that's not surprising since you've never tried to falsify it..

Excuse me, but rather than rambling on about my faults, could you please make your position clearer?
What is your position?
Have I got it wrong? Aren't you supporting a philosophical "determinate future" ?

What do my words mean? You thought that they meant "science says so" that "free-will is an illusion." Of course, had you addressed my comment, you might have avoided that confusion.

But you don't do that. You just ignore and then mis-paraphrase. You're spinning your wheels doing that. You make no progress, and never will until you learn to engage your collocutor in the manner I've specified.

You had just informed me, you were "pulling out" ..
..so it was more of a parting comment, really.

But you don't even try. This method seems to have no value to you, and you would be correct to assume that acquiring it would be a threat to your belief by faith.

I don't even "try" .. thanks.

 

[shunyadragon]

It doesnt make sense because it's a whole book that I wrote. I cannot summarize.

Your response will only have meaning unless you can cite peer revied research and articles and dummerize to support an argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'll tell you what I know ... I base my decisions on something every time I choose.

you do believe you choose, but you are failing to acknowledge the many deterministic factors that influence your choices,

 

[shunyadragon]

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

No nor psychological treatises. I cited scientific research, and of course natural evolution plays a role in the degree of Free Will humans have.

No .. all I am doing, is pointing out the COMMON definition of free-will, as the COMMON person
understands.

That definition as I said refers only to Libertarian Free Will. I hope our dialogue is above the high svhool level

One only needs to delve into science, when specializing on a topic .. such as psychology, for example.

This topic I have references so far does not deal with psychology. Some of the research involved neurology and other basic sciences that directly relate to the nature and degree of Free Will. You apparently ignored.

Many others here, including you, are bringing up "determinism", in the context of a "known future"
equating to loss of choice for the chooser.

My references have included the concept of determinism, the future can be predicted within a possible range of outcomes based on Chaos Theory. That is how weather forecasting works, and yes our future choices can be determined within a range of possible outcomes.

There is a fundamental problem here, your scientific knowledge is limited, you selectively reject science based on a religious agenda, ie evolution, and you have failed to read, understand or critique the references I provided,

I merely point out, that this is based on a fallacy. A very common fallacy.

No fallacy on my part pointed out

As I say, I have no problem with that.


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


Mmm .. another person telling me how I think.

I do not need to tell you how you think. You have made that very clear in your posts and your limited science rejecting evolution is the. Intentional ignorance of science is tough to deal with,

I'm none the wiser..

This based on the self imposed limits you have provided for your self, and selectively rejecting the science involved.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Yes, determinism is based on Natural Laws and processes we can observe in the world around us all the time. God Created the Natural Laws and process we can observe and base science on.

 

[Copernicus]

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

I addressed the linguistic validity of the methodology insofar as it had anything to do with usage. Just the same, your response wasn't pertinent to my post about List's defense of compatibilism.

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

You don't supply any specific information on the objections you are referring to, so I'll just reply to what you say in this post about Dennett's and/or my beliefs. I'm not sure how much of his material you've read, because he has published a lot on this subject. Your claims about what he believes don't always match up with the impression I have from reading his thoughts on the subject, and you seem not to cite actual sources from Dennett's writings that I can find.

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.

Shunya, I don't know what "Dennett's argument of 'living in the moment'" is. Can you supply a reference to it? Are you confusing Dennett with something I said about "living in the moment" in a previous post? You don't seem to actually be referring to anything Dennett has said, unless you are thinking of something he wrote that you saw somewhere else. In any case, your objection to what I said--not Dennett--about living in the moment is not contradicted by the fact that a chain of other moments goes back through life. We live from moment to moment. However, all human languages have methods for tense and time reference to past, present, and future. I strikes me as uncontroversial that we live in the present and can refer back to past (determined) events and future (undetermined) events that we think possible, likely, or unlikely to happen. Free will is always a present tense phenomenon. That's when we make our decisions.

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.

I really think that the "Free Will" entry in Wikipedia has been hopelessly muddled by people with different philosophical agendas warring with each other, as one can tell from looking at all the frequent changes reported in the revision history just in 2024. It is a turbulent piece of crowd-sourcing that is unlikely to end anytime soon. In any case, there is nothing in the above passage that would surprise or contradict a compatibilist, to my knowledge. People who face a range of options still select the one that satisfies their highest priority in the moment of choice.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..of course natural evolution plays a role in the degree of Free Will humans have..

"natural evolution" ?
Is that somehow different to just plain evolution?

That definition as I said refers only to Libertarian Free Will. I hope our dialogue is above the high svhool level..

Talking down to people shows a superiority complex.
Either that, or it is an attempt of an "appeal to authority".

Some of the research involved neurology and other basic sciences that directly relate to the nature and degree of Free Will. You apparently ignored..

I wasn't replying to those posts.

My references have included the concept of determinism, the future can be predicted within a possible range of outcomes based on Chaos Theory..

I don't believe it. Fortune-tellers rely on tricks/magic, and not reliable scientific theory.

That is how weather forecasting works, and yes our future choices can be determined within a range of possible outcomes.

Forecasting the weather is quite different from being able to predict what people will do tomorrow.

There is a fundamental problem here, your scientific knowledge is limited, you selectively reject science based on a religious agenda, ie evolution

How convenient. You use the excuse so as to ignore the major fallacy that you commit as a "determinist".

This based on the self imposed limits you have provided for your self, and selectively rejecting the science involved.

No .. "this based" on the fact that you refuse to explain why my statement "An agent is free to choose, if they could choose otherwise if they WANT to choose otherwise" is circular.

You prefer to hide behind "science" and talk down to people, rather than explain why the basic foundations are somehow flawed.

 

[Balthazzar]

The

you do believe you choose, but you are failing to acknowledge the many deterministic factors that influence your choices,

Then I base my decisions on many somethings every time I choose. I am a determinist. I've understood it this way for the better part 15 to twenty years now. Most people I knew called it self-justification of behavior they disapproved of.

 

[shunyadragon]

"natural evolution" ?
Is that somehow different to just plain evolution?


Talking down to people shows a superiority complex.
Either that, or it is an attempt of an "appeal to authority".

No, just an appeal to the actual English and scientific definitions and concepts concerning Free Will extend past your narrow perspective.

I wasn't replying to those posts.

Those posts are relevant to discussion.

I don't believe it. Fortune-tellers rely on tricks/magic, and not reliable scientific theory.

This reflects you negative intentional ignorance of science.

Forecasting the weather is quite different from being able to predict what people will do tomorrow.

No

How convenient. You use the excuse so as to ignore the major fallacy that you commit as a "determinist".

You have not described nor referred to any logical fallacy that is a problem

No .. "this based" on the fact that you refuse to explain why my statement "An agent is free to choose, if they could choose otherwise if they WANT to choose otherwise" is circular.

No, I have explained fully in in several posts that you have admitted you refuse to respond to.

You prefer to hide behind "science" and talk down to people, rather than explain why the basic foundations are somehow flawed.

This reflects you negative intentional ignorance of science based on an ancient religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

I addressed the linguistic validity of the methodology insofar as it had anything to do with usage. Just the same, your response wasn't pertinent to my post about List's defense of compatibilism.

Linguistic validity as you used it does not justify any argument.

You don't supply any specific information on the objections you are referring to, so I'll just reply to what you say in this post about Dennett's and/or my beliefs. I'm not sure how much of his material you've read, because he has published a lot on this subject. Your claims about what he believes don't always match up with the impression I have from reading his thoughts on the subject, and you seem not to cite actual sources from Dennett's writings that I can find.

I provided a number of good references and specific information on the subject, I have read Dennett's work and many others over the years. I do not read thoughts, My crystal ball broke.

Shunya, I don't know what "Dennett's argument of 'living in the moment'" is. Can you supply a reference to it? Are you confusing Dennett with something I said about "living in the moment" in a previous post? You don't seem to actually be referring to anything Dennett has said, unless you are thinking of something he wrote that you saw somewhere else. In any case, your objection to what I said--not Dennett--about living in the moment is not contradicted by the fact that a chain of other moments goes back through life. We live from moment to moment. However, all human languages have methods for tense and time reference to past, present, and future. I strikes me as uncontroversial that we live in the present and can refer back to past (determined) events and future (undetermined) events that we think possible, likely, or unlikely to happen. Free will is always a present tense phenomenon. That's when we make our decisions.

Go to post #543

My view, which I have stated several times now, is that free will can be construed as an illusion or not, depending on what perspective (or "stance" to use one of Dennett's favorite terms) one takes. People do not live in the past or the future. They live in the moment.

I really think that the "Free Will" entry in Wikipedia has been hopelessly muddled by people with different philosophical agendas warring with each other, as one can tell from looking at all the frequent changes reported in the revision history just in 2024. It is a turbulent piece of crowd-sourcing that is unlikely to end anytime soon. In any case, there is nothing in the above passage that would surprise or contradict a compatibilist, to my knowledge. People who face a range of options still select the one that satisfies their highest priority in the moment of choice.

As usual rejecting specific reasonable source to justify your agenda is your modus operandi.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This reflects you negative intentional ignorance of science.
...
This reflects you negative intentional ignorance of science based on an ancient religious agenda.

No new content .. just ad hominem.

You say "I have explained fully in in several posts that you have admitted you refuse to respond to",
which is untrue.

This is what you had to say "So circular it bites you in the butt."
..and then refused to explain why.
..whatever..

 

[shunyadragon]

No new content .. just ad hominem.

You say "I have explained fully in in several posts that you have admitted you refuse to respond to",
which is untrue.

To quote you "I wasn't replying to those posts." Ocourse you have not responded to any of these references. . . and you reject science.