How do you exactly define 'free will'?

[Skwim]

That would be fine if this were able to explain consciousness.

I don't see this as an issue at all. Consciousness is no more than a state of awareness, which was caused by those elements that make it up, which in turn were caused by prior causes.

I think this fails to consider the the ability of the conscious brain to act independently of the set of A circumstances to arrive at one of the choices available in set B.

Then whence does it arise? It's just there?

You see it as a long chain of events. I see it as an agent independent of that chain with can interact in ways that are unique to that individual agent. The agent can choose to interact with that chain, ignore it partially or completely or interact with a completely unrelated chain of events.

Then you'll have to explain the mechanisms that form this agency.

So free will is the brains ability to independently decide how to interact with this chain of events.

Then how does it decide? What are functional aspects that make it work?

You can say what the mind does is also a chain of events but so what?

Well, it means that what it does is determined, and that it's in no way free to do otherwise.

The only thing necessary for free will is that the mind can act independent of the chain of events which first brought about the need to make a choice.

And the determinist will remind you that choice, an undetermined act, is an illusion. And, of course, you still have to explain how the mind acts if such acting is not caused.

Keep in mind that any action, no matter where it resides, has to have a cause, and that cause has to have been caused, and . . . . . If it doesn't than the only other means by which an event can come into being is through utter randomness: it could just as well not happen as happen.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't see this as an issue at all. Consciousness is no more than a state of awareness, which was caused by those elements that make it up, which in turn were caused by prior causes.

Whereas I see it changing the entire ballgame. It's development adds something new to causality. The ability to act independent of past events.

Then whence does it arise? It's just there?

It arised through the evolutionary process.

Then you'll have to explain the mechanisms that form this agency.

I'll leave that to science with better resources and methods then I can muster.

Then how does it decide? What are functional aspects that make it work?

How do you decide, I know you believe it is an illusion but you still go through the motions. I believe some individuals have more capability of choice then others. So your mileage may vary.

Personally I find my mind to be very flexible in choosing among alternates. I can imagine scenarios imagine possible consequences. Input those consequences into new scenarios. Take into consideration any current conditions at this moment. Create new scenarios based on them. Ignore any current conditions. Apply any moral codes I choose, apply logic. Determine the possibility of various random events. Ignore any or all of them. Believe in a God of my choosing and add that in to the mix if I choose to. Bring up any past similar experiences/ Ignore those as well. Consider my goals. Not consider my goals. Ignore any of that or accept any portion of it and start over again.

Well, it means that what it does is determined, and that it's in no way free to do otherwise.

Determine by what? And what is it not free to other wise do?

And the determinist will remind you that choice, an undetermined act, is an illusion. And, of course, you still have to explain how the mind acts if such acting is not caused.

And I have to remind the determinist that free will requires causality. They'd have to explain how the mind being caused prevents it from independent choices.

Keep in mind that any action, no matter where it resides, has to have a cause, and that cause has to have been caused, and . . . . . If it doesn't than the only other means by which an event can come into being is through utter randomness: it could just as well not happen as happen.

So? How does that prevent the mind from acting independent of circumstances of which it needs to make a choice regarding?

Again randomness is not a problem. A mind can certainly choose to use a random process to make a decision.

It seems quite self-evident that a mind is capable of acting and making choices independent of any chain of events. You can that illusion but then I think you'd need to prove the illusion. Otherwise a reasonable person would stick with what is self evident.

 

[Skwim]

Whereas I see it changing the entire ballgame. It's development adds something new to causality. The ability to act independent of past events.

Easy to say, but what is your evidence/argument that this is so?

It arised through the evolutionary process.

I certainty hope you're not referring to biological evolution, because you'll have quite a job of showing it.

I'll leave that to science with better resources and methods then I can muster.

But you're content to assert it's so without evidence. Okay.

How do you decide, I know you believe it is an illusion but you still go through the motions.

Actually, I don't. I participate in the illusion while upon reflection know that's all it is.

Determine by what?

all the prior sequences of cause/effect leading up to it.

And what is it not free to other wise do?

I assume you meant to say "And why is it not free to other wise do?" Because to do otherwise would entail that something in the sequence of cause/effect be different than what it was, but because it happened as it did there couldn't have been anything different , at least not to the extent it would change the outcome.

And I have to remind the determinist that free will requires causality.

Well, I must say that very few freewillers ever admit to as much.

They'd have to explain how the mind being caused prevents it from independent choices.

They'd simply say that it's fallacious to posit choice, and be done with your challenge. They'd remind you that choice is an illusion and has no bearing on the discussion.

So? How does that prevent the mind from acting independent of circumstances of which it needs to make a choice regarding?

Again, the idea of choice is no more relevant than proposing faeries.

Again randomness is not a problem. A mind can certainly choose to use a random process to make a decision.

See reply above.

It seems quite self-evident that a mind is capable of acting and making choices independent of any chain of events. You can that illusion but then I think you'd need to prove the illusion. Otherwise a reasonable person would stick with what is self evident.

Have a nice day.

 

[Renascibilitas]

IMHO. Free will is simply man's ability to choose good or evil. We are all born with different capacities and circumstances. But all of us have the choice to either be good people who care for others or bad people who are self obsorbed and blind to the needs of others. Nothing can take that away from us and I believe all people who choose to help others and live an honest, sincere life will be rewarded accordingly.

This is very disillusioned in my view. People are not free to do as they choose and are usually quite tied to the tracks their life train as spawned is rolling down. I could simply explain it that some are more free than others but they are really no more free than anyone else and in some circumstances more bound than others.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Science has found that brain activity preceded awareness. See Benjamin Libet.

1) Who argues in his book that free will is possible
2) Whose conclusions regarding his experiments have been subject to much criticism on virtually every level, from experimental design to his interpretations of the results.

 

[JerryL]

Everything else.

*That* is begging the question. Give an example of an "else".

 

[JerryL]

So if it is “determined by random” it is not a combination of “determined” and “random” but “determined”, and “random” just serves as the cause like “biochemistry” or “initial conditions”.

Thus, according to one way you use random, EVERYTHING can be determined because something that is determined can be “determined by random”.

1: Determined by conditions.
2: Random

"Determined by random" is either a rewording of #2, or of #1 where the results of the random thing is one of the determining factors, depending on context.

For example. If I flip a random coin (no such thing exists, but that's not really the point) and then scream if it comes out heads; my scream was determined by conditions, but one of those conditions was the result of a random event. "determined by random".

If we can agree that "everything is entirely random" is false: we could re-phrase my claim to "deterministic and either containing some random elements or not"

 

[JerryL]

Of course, this is necessary for freewill. You have to evaluate conditions past, present and possible future conditions in order to make a decision. However you seem to ignore yourself as the agent which sets some of these conditions.

I don't think I'm ignoring it so much as considering it irrelevant.

Indeterminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Random

Compatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Equivocation.

Sure, you've accepted a definition for free will that makes it impossible. That's the topic right how do you define free will. As an agent which possesses free will I can choose to accept a definition which makes more sense at least in the manner that humans operate.

So. Do you accept that your choices... your "freewill", which you assert to have, and how you define it, is itself entirely the result of conditions (including conditions inside your brain), perhaps with a dash of randomness thrown in?

If so: my work is done. I'm happy to discuss your definition of free-will with you next if you like; though I suspect that there's tautological support for it as well.

 

[Willamena]

*That* is begging the question. Give an example of an "else".

The world, as the sum of content of thought, stands in contrast to that referential thing that it stands in contrast to, "self."

I meant literally everything else.

 

[JerryL]

The world, as the sum of content of thought, stands in contrast to that referential thing that it stands in contrast to, "self."

I meant literally everything else.

Then "everything else" is a subset of "determined by conditions" and "random".

 

[Nakosis]

Easy to say, but what is your evidence/argument that this is so?

The argument I've made. That a person can make a choice is self evident. The claim that is an illusion while it maybe true hasn't been proven. For example if you have ever seen a mirage. Perception tells you that you are looking at a body of water. Obviously perception can be fooled. However until the mirage(illusion) is proven we have to rely on what perception tells us. Since neither determinism nor indeterminism has been proven we are still free to use the evidence perception provides as any reasonable person would do.

I certainty hope you're not referring to biological evolution, because you'll have quite a job of showing it.

I'm not here to refute evolution. If you believe there is an alternate explanation for the development of the human brain I'm ready to hear it.

But you're content to assert it's so without evidence. Okay.

I am only asserting what is self-evident. If is only your belief in determinism which justifies you thinking otherwise. If determinism is proven, I'll accept that. Until then I think is is better to stick with what is self evident.

Actually, I don't. I participate in the illusion while upon reflection know that's all it is.

Your knowledge is based on belief in determinism. I have no particular belief but I'm accepting what is apparently self-evident until shown otherwise.

all the prior sequences of cause/effect leading up to it.

Which proves nothing other then a sequence of events. At best this only shows that time flows in one direction.

I assume you meant to say "And why is it not free to other wise do?" Because to do otherwise would entail that something in the sequence of cause/effect be different than what it was, but because it happened as it did there couldn't have been anything different , at least not to the extent it would change the outcome.

Which is impossible to prove one way or the other because it is impossible to go back in time. So belief in determinism is based on the fact that we can't do the impossible. It is impossible to disprove that a God exists so there must be one right?

However since neither of us can go back in time neither indeterminism nor determinism has been proven. So we are left with what is self-evident and philosophical arguments.

Well, I must say that very few freewillers ever admit to as much.

There are many schools of thought on free will and determinism however in a nutshell an agent has to accept causality in that they assume the action they decide upon will caused the desired result. Without that assumption any choice they made would not matter as there would be guarantee their choice would make a difference.

They'd simply say that it's fallacious to posit choice, and be done with your challenge. They'd remind you that choice is an illusion and has no bearing on the discussion.

Yes, no sense in arguing with a true believer. However hopefully there remain other reasonable individuals who understand there is still room for discussion.

Again, the idea of choice is no more relevant than proposing faeries.
See reply above.

Obviously not to the true believers of determinism. Fortunately I find many still willing to question that truth.

Have a nice day.

Thanks, and so we start another one.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't think I'm ignoring it so much as considering it irrelevant.

Yes, I see that as part of the belief. Accepting one's self as irrelevant.

Random
Equivocation.

Ok, well you ask for other positions. They are not particularly mine but just to show you they exist.

So. Do you accept that your choices... your "freewill", which you assert to have, and how you define it, is itself entirely the result of conditions (including conditions inside your brain), perhaps with a dash of randomness thrown in?

Nope, I'm just saying that a freewill agent has this as an option in making a decision, that that it is always the case.

If so: my work is done. I'm happy to discuss your definition of free-will with you next if you like; though I suspect that there's tautological support for it as well.

Well currently I'm more interested in the tautology of determinism and the claim that choice is an illusion.

 

[JerryL]

Nope, I'm just saying that a freewill agent has this as an option in making a decision, that that it is always the case.

And how is that decision arrived at without being dependent on some combination of conditions and randomness?

Well currently I'm more interested in the tautology of determinism and the claim that choice is an illusion.

The way you've just used it, either you don't know what a tautological argument is, or I've failed to parse your sentence.

 

[Willamena]

Then "everything else" is a subset of "determined by conditions" and "random".

And what are they a subset of?

 

[Skwim]

The argument I've made. That a person can make a choice is self evident.

If you believe that green trolls with snotty noses exist, and someone told you they don't, would you persist in making an argument based on the premise that they do?

Have a nice day.

 

[JerryL]

And what are they a subset of?

"methods by which things can come to happen"

 

[Willamena]

The other two popular views are indeterminism and compatibilism.
Indeterminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Random
Equivocation

How do you figure that indeterminism is randomness, or that compatibilism equivocates?

You may want to check out those links.

 

[Willamena]

"methods by which things can come to happen"

And how did this method come about? That might suggest the superset.

 

[Nakosis]

And how is that decision arrived at without being dependent on some combination of conditions and randomness?

That's not the point. The point is the ability of an agent to set these conditions independent of the circumstances which brought about the need for a decision. The point is the ability to make a choice among two or more possible futures. The point is whether future is decided before a person goes through the process of deciding his action.

If that is true then the decision making process we all go through is unnecessary. Why would the brain have developed such a process if it was unnecessary? Cause and effect right? There must have been a cause for this.

The way you've just used it, either you don't know what a tautological argument is, or I've failed to parse your sentence.

I assumed you meant the use of rhetoric, the other meanings didn't quite make sense to me. I don't necessarily believe in universal truths and I don't think we are applying the rule of replacement.

 

[Nakosis]

How do you figure that indeterminism is randomness, or that compatibilism equivocates?

You may want to check out those links.

I assume the meaning of freewill or free will.

Free will the ability to actually have made a different choice. The claim I think this needs to be proven otherwise determinist don't have to accept it's existence.

All that has really happen is that determinism has contrived a definition for something that can't be proven to be true and then claim it doesn't exist.

If you try to provide a workable definition for free will then it equivocation.

So I'm happy to accept they've created a definition for something which can't be proven incorrect and called it free will.

Fine but now their belief is based on a definition of something they claim doesn't exist.

It kind of begs the question doesn't it? The truth of the assumption is based on the definition and the definition is based on the truth of the assumption. The argument becomes rhetorical.

Nice and neat and you don't really have to prove anything, just coerce others into accepting the definition.