How do you exactly define 'free will'?

[Smart_Guy]

That is very nearly a given, S.G.

Which does not mean it is not a significant matter to discuss. After all, "free will" is often invoked as a justification to disregard other people's rights.

It is a worthy subject to discuss, but I humbly don't think it is that significant.

(kinda off-topic):
Governing, limiting and controlling freewill is another subject tho, and I humbly see it is a significant subject to discuss instead of just defining freewill.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is a worthy subject to discuss, but I humbly don't think it is that significant.

That will be the case when it is no longer invoked. Until then it is. Not in itself, but by way of its use.

(kinda off-topic):
Governing, limiting and controlling freewill is another subject tho, and I humbly see it is a significant subject to discuss instead of just defining freewill.

 

[Willamena]

We have a saying here that roughly translates to "what's free, take as much as you can of it"

We have a saying, "Don't take more than you need."

 

[Smart_Guy]

That will be the case when it is no longer invoked. Until then it is. Not in itself, but by way of its use.

Yes, that's what I meant. Lingering in the definition (as in freewill "itself") while neglecting the way of its use I believe should not be overdone like I see in previous posts.

 

[Smart_Guy]

We have a saying, "Don't take more than you need."

And your saying is the rational one

Mine is selfish and I don't really agree with it.

 

[Adstar]

Well, it has to depend on something or else it wouldn't exist, unless you think it's makes an utterly random appearance out of nothing.

It is dependent on the persons own motivations. When i said independent i was meaning independent of external control.

 

[RAYYAN]

Bearing.

And no. Atheists don't believe in god.

Thanks for the correction
Yes, I know they don't believe in God, but they always debate theoretically, If God existed

 

[Skwim]

Which confirms what I said.


Wha--? Levels?

Bingo!

 

[JerryL]

Your notation is off.

It's not my notation. It's from Bednorz, Adam; Franke, Kurt; Belzig, Wolfgang (February 2013). "Noninvasiveness and time symmetry of weak measurements". New Journal of Physics15: 023043.Bibcode:2013NJPh...15b3043B. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/15/2/023043.

Not random.

Then determined by conditions. That works too. No freedom.

 

[JerryL]

From a definitional standpoint: can we all agree than any definition of "free will" which would establish a computer as *having* "free will", is an invalid definition?

 

[Skwim]

From a definitional standpoint: can we all agree than any definition of "free will" which would establish a computer as *having* "free will", is an invalid definition?

I
l'll go along with that, as long as freewill also includes other animals such as dogs, turtles, and snails.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's not my notation. It's from Bednorz, Adam; Franke, Kurt; Belzig, Wolfgang (February 2013). "Noninvasiveness and time symmetry of weak measurements". New Journal of Physics15: 023043.Bibcode:2013NJPh...15b3043B. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/15/2/023043.

You're going to have to help me out here. I went over the paper several times (I even searched through it to find all use of colons, every capital T or tau, and I can't find any example in the paper that even uses the "pusher" arrow after either a capital tau or T with a following colon. Also, given that f: t↦-t means "the function f which maps the specific element t to the element t with opposite magnitude (odd, but had you indicated a set or domain and used f or something other than capital T...), the use of the arrow in the paper either means "goes to" (and lacks the colon) or "goes to/approaches the limit" (and still lacks the colon), and I don't even see an arrow (pusher or no) defining a function as in your notation thanks to the colon. Could you provide the page number where I can find T: t ↦-t?

Thanks.

Then determined by conditions. That works too. No freedom.

Nope. Not determined by conditions.

 

[Willamena]

From a definitional standpoint: can we all agree than any definition of "free will" which would establish a computer as *having* "free will", is an invalid definition?

Why that condition?

 

[Paradox22]

I think that as soon as one defines free will, it can immediately be refuted. The problem is that it is left vague and illusive.
That said, looking back at your post:

And do you think that we're entitled for such privilege (whatever)?

it looks like what you are really referring to is freedom of action or liberty. We are only entitled to do that which is allowed in our respective society. But that is really a different question than what we typically mean by free will.

 

[Paradox22]

I believe in determinism, which leaves no room for any way that an agent can think/want/decide independent of antecedent conditions. There is no way to isolate the mechanism where an agent's choices are independent from the laws of physics acting on antecedent conditions. To convince me that free will exists, one would have to point to a mechanism or step in the chain of cause and effect where a choice is not directly caused. Sometimes people grasp onto the uncertainty of quantum physics, but all that does is enter an element of randomness into the equation. That doesn't get you any closer to the goal.

 

[Thief]

Did someone say so?.....your freewill is defined by your self denial.

If you cannot say 'no' to yourself....you are not in control.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I believe in determinism

So how would you explain that, of the two most successful scientific theories ever, one is fundamentally non-deterministic, and the other allows for causality paradoxes and the most complete indeterminism possible?

There is no way to isolate the mechanism where an agent's choices are independent from the laws of physics acting on antecedent conditions.

There are two ways. One is the inability of modern physics not only to prove incapable of presenting any such laws, the other being emergent processes/functions within complex systems that self-determine at least partially independence from "laws of physics".

To convince me that free will exists, one would have to point to a mechanism or step in the chain of cause and effect where a choice is not directly caused

The empirical realizations of Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, the solutions to Einstein's equations in general relativity that allow future states to determine past states, and the capacity for observers to force past states to be determined by choice (the latter is the most contentious in its most popular form, i.e., that of Penrose & Hameroff, and less contentious models such as Stapp's are only relatively superior given the severe lack of evidence other than possibilities).

Sometimes people grasp onto the uncertainty of quantum physics, but all that does is enter an element of randomness into the equation.

What is it with people who don't understand or use QM to equate indeterminism with randomness? No, it isn't random, it is clearly not random, and if it were QM would be a useless theory incapable of doing anything. This blatantly clear.

A better attack would be a criticism of functional emergence and circular causality that don't depend on QM at all.

 

[LuisDantas]

Did someone say so?.....your freewill is defined by your self denial.

If you cannot say 'no' to yourself....you are not in control.

By such a measure, I don't think we have established that free will exists, or even that it can conceivably exist.

 

[Willamena]

I believe in determinism, which leaves no room for any way that an agent can think/want/decide independent of antecedent conditions. There is no way to isolate the mechanism where an agent's choices are independent from the laws of physics acting on antecedent conditions. To convince me that free will exists, one would have to point to a mechanism or step in the chain of cause and effect where a choice is not directly caused. Sometimes people grasp onto the uncertainty of quantum physics, but all that does is enter an element of randomness into the equation. That doesn't get you any closer to the goal.

To me, the convincing picture of free will is the one that isn't looking at the world from the perspective of a sequence of events, the figurative god's eye view, in other words the one that includes the subjectively experiential world in which we live.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think that as soon as one defines free will, it can immediately be refuted.

This is clearly (at least trivially) false. Define free will to be that which is true. Then it is. Of course, then it's useless and meaningless, but the point is to be as careful as is possible with definitions. I've defined free will several times here over the years. You're welcome to immediately refute these.

The problem is that it is left vague and illusive

Not only are words polysemous, but most linguistic units aren't words but constructions.

I believe in determinism, which leaves no room for any way that an agent can think/want/decide independent of antecedent conditions.

It also contradicts quantum physics and leads to paradoxes in the general theory of relativity. Is your belief dogma, religion, ignorance, or a sophisticated interpretation of modern physics the nuances of which resolve the apparently obvious indeterminacy of physics?

There is no way to isolate the mechanism where an agent's choices are independent from the laws of physics acting on antecedent conditions.

That's true (IMO). And if 'free will" is understood to mean the capacity to act or decide utterly without external influence then this would matter. I know of no serious scientists, philosophers, nor fields in metaphysics or philosophy which understands free will as such.

To convince me that free will exists, one would have to point to a mechanism or step in the chain of cause and effect where a choice is not directly caused.

I've referred to several studies in this tread alone which do so. Quantum mechanics has entailed such phenomena since EPR and Bell provide a rigorous test in the 60s, but it wasn't until the 80s that actual experiments demonstrated in multiple ways that the determinism you espouse is a 19th century relic. That's without getting into systems sciences and complex systems.

Sometimes people grasp onto the uncertainty of quantum physics

They do indeed. And they are often refuted by those who know even less about modern physics relying on equally nonsensical arguments.

, but all that does is enter an element of randomness into the equation

No, it doesn't and can't and a passing familiarity with QM would reveal so.