How do you exactly define 'free will'?

[Nakosis]

Either that process has random elements or it does not.

If it does, then the randomness (which is not will) Is the part that varies the outcome. If it does not then the outcome is entirely the result of the conditions.

"unnecessary" is a nonsensical word. Something cannot be absolutely necessary... it can only be relatively necessary.

The brain has developed the way it has because the developments were beneficial to the likelihood of reproduction.

A tautological assertion is self-referencially true. Sometimes referred to as a "truism".

My claim on free will "It either has random elements or does not", or the inverse "It is either determined by the state of everything or it is not", is a tautology.

That is only relevant to the definition of free will you use, used by the philosophy of determinism. It seems obvious to me that a human being has a lot more complexity then the philosophy allows for. However the definition, though a bit ambiguous, is what it is. The discussion so far is if there is a disagreement about "free will", refer to the definition.

So, the definition of free will according to determinism is is self-referencially true.

It's not what I'd call free will and I suppose you wouldn't call it that either since it refers to something which according to the claim doesn't exist. Kind of a odd discussion but whatever.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Certainly if I saw green trolls with snotty noses running *about* and I had the expectation that any rational person could make the same observation for themselves.

It seems obviously that we go through a process of making a choice. Whether illusion of not, I'd think any human being would be self-aware of the process of making a decision. You don't accept the obvious because of the definition of free will provided by the philosophy of determinism. Ok, the free will defined by determinism doesn't exist. However I don't see that it affect in any significant way the ability of a human being to make a choice between alternate futures.

Like defining "free will" as green trolls with snotty noses and then saying it should be obvious to anyone they don't exist. Therefore choice is an illusion.

 

[Nakosis]

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

You may want to check out those links.

Actually I'm not an advocate of either really.

My point is that an agent, conscious human being, is an independent self-contained process. Since we don't fully know at this point the internal workings, a box box. There is inputs and outputs. Because such an agent is a "black box" the outputs are not determined. Whatever processes used, whatever they may be are unique to each agent.

Lets said the brain is capable of randomness. This is still internal to the agent. Not something that occurs externally. So something, a process/tool usable by the agent to make a determination of their will.

Like being indecisive between chocolate and vanilla cake. So just make a random selection. Once the selection is made then my will is determined. My will was not determined before this random, internal process. The future was not determined before this random process because my will was not determined.

So randomness determined my choice. I can make a choice which was not determined by a chain of event which occurred prior to the choosing process. After the choosing (by random process) my will is now set to get "chocolate" lets say. According to how I define free will, it's whether I can get the chocolate cake according to my will which was internally determined by an random process.

I'm sure this is not compatibilism. Indeterminism perhaps. I'll have to look into the philosophy a bit more.

Right now I'm thinking both determinism and compatibilism cheese out of the question of free will through the use of contrived definitions. Though I kind of agree with compatibilism that choice and free will are not bound together. It still supports a determined future.

 

[Nakosis]

Hmmm...

Random
proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:
the random selection of numbers.

In this case a decision made without reason or cause. Can the brain make a decision between two alternate, not equal selections, without reason or cause. Chocolate or vanilla?

Can rats make random decisions?

Tinkering with brain's decision circuits makes rats go random - LA Times

 

[Thief]

Random is suppose to include at least one repeated and predictable pattern.

The flight of the dandelion seed is random.
That you get more dandelions is predictable.

 

[Skwim]

Random is suppose to include at least one repeated and predictable pattern..

Why? I think random can mean a single, seemingly arbitrary and unpredictable event, or a single uncaused event.

 

[Thief]

Why? I think random can mean a single, seemingly arbitrary and unpredictable event, or a single uncaused event.

Nope....saw the science documentary several years ago.
'Random' events have been regrouped and are now a matter of study.
The discipline is a science unto itself.....Chaos.

A singular event might be called an accident.

All events are caused.
We might be at a loss to say what happened.....but as long as it did....
something made it happen.

 

[Willamena]

Like being indecisive between chocolate and vanilla cake. So just make a random selection. Once the selection is made then my will is determined. My will was not determined before this random, internal process. The future was not determined before this random process because my will was not determined.

That differs from my idea of will, which is anything but accidental.

 

[Skwim]

Nope....saw the science documentary several years ago.
'Random' events have been regrouped and are now a matter of study.
The discipline is a science unto itself.....Chaos.

So what? How does this bear on my assertion that a singular event can be random?

A singular event might be called an accident.

Okay.

All events are caused.

Not according to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. One source explains . . . .

"It took a while, but hidden variable theory was eventually disproved by John Bell, who showed that there are lots of experiments that cannot have unmeasured results. Thus the results cannot be determined ahead of time, so there are no hidden variables, and the results are truly random. That is, if it is physically and mathematically impossible to predict the results, then the results are truly, fundamentally random."
source​

 

[Nakosis]

That differs from my idea of will, which is anything but accidental.

What is your idea of will?

I see will as the power of a individual to control their own actions. I see lots of way to go about doing this.

 

[Willamena]

What is your idea of will?

I see will as the power of a individual to control their own actions. I see lots of way to go about doing this.

Things about which we are unconscious are not in our control. When I reach out and pick up a cup of coffee, lift it to my lips and take a sip, that is will.

 

[Thief]

So what? How does this bear on my assertion that a singular event can be random?

Okay.

Not according to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. One source explains . . . .

"It took a while, but hidden variable theory was eventually disproved by John Bell, who showed that there are lots of experiments that cannot have unmeasured results. Thus the results cannot be determined ahead of time, so there are no hidden variables, and the results are truly random. That is, if it is physically and mathematically impossible to predict the results, then the results are truly, fundamentally random."
source​

So you prefer experimentation of which the results are not chained to the experiment.

If you cast aside the relationship...cause to effect....you can prove nothing.

Might as well believe in unicorns!

 

[Thief]

Things about which we are unconscious are not in our control. When I reach out and pick up a cup of coffee, lift it to my lips and take a sip, that is will.

And sometimes a lot of freewill must be applied.
Try drinking my coffee!
My coffee is sooooooo stong!
(see thread, same title)

 

[johnpeter1970]

FREE Will is: you do what you want (doesn't matter if it is your idea or someone's else). What you sow, you reap.

 

[Thief]

FREE Will is: you do what you want (doesn't matter if it is your idea or someone's else). What you sow, you reap.

I usually say as much, but with different words.
If your hand does anything at all.....you thought you should.....or you felt like it.

Consequence follows every effort.

 

[Willamena]

And sometimes a lot of freewill must be applied.
Try drinking my coffee!
My coffee is sooooooo stong!
(see thread, same title)

Free will is not applied, it's not synonymous with controlling, the verb. It is more synonymous with being in control, the state. It is 'you' owning actions that are 'yours.' Each instance of ownership is the result of a 'decision': I drank from the cup, that was me that did that.

 

[Nakosis]

Free will is not applied, it's not synonymous with controlling, the verb. It is more synonymous with being in control, the state. It is 'you' owning actions that are 'yours.' Each instance of ownership is the result of a 'decision': I drank from the cup, that was me that did that.

Ok, I think, again this is a personal view, that will requires a conscious element. I do a lot of things during the day that are responses or maybe muscle memory. Like drinking from a cup.

This idea of will, I think, is more a matter of causality which supports the belief in determinism more than the ability of making a choice.

But perhaps I'll think about it. Choice is separate from will. So maybe I'll need to review the definitions.

 

[Willamena]

Ok, I think, again this is a personal view, that will requires a conscious element. I do a lot of things during the day that are responses or maybe muscle memory. Like drinking from a cup.

But muscle memory things are those that you can dismiss ownership of. I didn't do that, that wasn't me.

 

[Sleeppy]

The delusion/illusion that choices are made independent of God's natural laws.

 

[Nakosis]

The delusion/illusion that choices are made independent of God's natural laws.

What about choices made dependent on God's natural law?