How do you exactly define 'free will'?

[JerryL]

From the perspective of physics, so do humans. Fortunately, free will needn't be seen from the perspective of physics.

You can insert whatever mechanics of decision making you like. The test for freedom doesn't require a model of the mechanism making the choice.

It's just much more *clear* when you can also see the mechanism.

 

[idea]

As a created entity....no.
We are born.

Some would say the body in terms of structure began billions of years ago.
But that much is not really 'you'....is it?

Same say all of our actions can be traced back to either nature, or nurture... We know there is more to it than nature - more to us than our DNA, than the color of our skin etc... I think there is also more to us than the neighborhood we grew up in ...

So, what makes you 'you'?

Was our birth our beginning?

"
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star, 60
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come" - Wordsworth

There is no original cause for free will apart from the individual. As computer AI might someday become an individual, it may certainly qualify as engaging free will.

I agree, "there is no original cause for free will apart from the individual".

 

[Willamena]

FWIW: My computer exclusion was discussing current, common computers. Not a hypothetical future computer or some "we aren't sure how it does what it does" experimental piece of silicon somewhere.

I would still reject "something a computer can't do" as a qualifier for free will.

A more useful antagonist for free will is the philosophical automaton.

 

[Willamena]

You can insert whatever mechanics of decision making you like. The test for freedom doesn't require a model of the mechanism making the choice.

I agree.

It's just much more *clear* when you can also see the mechanism.

Not if it's not required.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

OK. Determined by random. That' works as well. No "will".

So nothing on the page whence comes your notation?
"Determined by random". Interesting. Kind of like being killed by living, sober by being drunk, poor by being rich, and other such contradicting terms. Quantum processes are not determined nor are they random. They are probabilistic.

 

[Nakosis]

My personal belief is that your brain operates exactly like the biological machine it is. It's actions are determined by input and programming.

Is there a difference between me and my brain?

Why do you think a calculator isn't a computer?

Because I know the difference. I don't know any who goes about calling a computer a calculator.

Like your brain.

Except I don't believe computers or calculators have consciousness, at least yet.

That's not really how it works. That's rather a meta-view at best of how a electrical transistor functions.

You really can't compare a transistor to a calculator and certainly not a computer and certainly not a brain nor a conscious individual.

But it's neither here nor there. You are supporting me with this example. You can have choice or freedom, but not both at the same time. Computers are an example where we can see that in action (choice but no freedom).

Freedom and choice have to go together. For example, say I'm in prison for whatever reason. I am no longer free to go wherever I wish. I am no longer free to make that choice. However once I get out of prison, I am now free to choose where I want to go.

A lack of choice means no freedom. A lack of freedom means no choice.

 

[Nakosis]

First of all, it's not determinism's definition, but mine and that of others.
And as I said, "if you have some other definition of freewill as it stands in opposition to determinism I'm all ears."

That doesn't matter. It's up to you to defend the position, not anyone else.

You might want to rephrase this. As written it's too confusing to make sense of.

Sorry, a few grammar errors...
I make choices all the time, everyday and act upon those choices. Just because I have reasons and desires behind those choices doesn't makes them anything less than a choice. In if there were no desire are reasons for my choices then they wouldn't be a choice.

Please re-read what I wrote. For one thing, I said " but these thoughts weren't random occurrences that materialized out of nowhere," "THOUGHTS" not "choices. For another thing, I said they "weren't."

Yet you said there was no choosing. Then how is me scratching my nose any different?

I'm saying there's no such a thing as choice or choosing.
What you perceive as choosing is nothing more than the end result of a series of cause/effect events that inexorably lead you to a specific thought, "I will do X," and none other, which in turn determines what you will do.

Yes, I make a choice which determines what I do. However I disagree with it being inexorable because I can be persuaded by many things which may change the outcome.

I expect one will do what they're destined to do.

So you are saying a killer or a rapist have no choice and therefore should not be blamed for their actions. From birth they were destined to kill or rape, or become a Christian or a Atheist for that matter. Whatever your belief are or someone else's beliefs are. They had no choice in the matter.

What do you see as not having existance?

The determinist definition of choice.

 

[Nakosis]

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 only brought up computers to show that freewill is unnecessary in the mechanism of choice. Choosing does not require freewill. However freewill does requires the ability to make a choice unrestricted by something that prevents someone from making that choice.

So to say there is no choice is silly. The dilemma created by determinism is a false one created by redefining choice into something which doesn't exist.

 

[Skwim]

That doesn't matter. It's up to you to defend the position, not anyone else.

Nothing to defend. It's simply the definition I and others believe best expresses the concept of "freewill." YOU'RE the one complaining that it makes freewill indefensible. To which I suggested that because this obviously doesn't suit you, that you come up with one of your own. Can't do it? Then the in-defensibility of freewill stands as is. I'm certainly not going to try to come up with a definition I believe is in error just to give you a chance to show I got it wrong. That would be a bit stupid, don't you think.

Sorry, a few grammar errors...
I make choices all the time, everyday and act upon those choices. Just because I have reasons and desires behind those choices doesn't makes them anything less than a choice. In if there were no desire are reasons for my choices then they wouldn't be a choice.

And my position is that these so-called "choices" are no more than acts dictated by antecedent causes. Acts you had to do. Or to put it in your vernacular, acts you had no choice in doing.

Yet you said there was no choosing. Then how is me scratching my nose any different?

Back in post 77 I said

"these thoughts weren't random occurrences that materialized out of nowhere, but considerations that had reasons--causes behind them."​

You then replied.

"You want to define a choice as a "random occurrence that is materialized out of no where?" ​

To which I corrected you:

"Please re-read what I wrote. For one thing, I said " but these thoughts weren't random occurrences that materialized out of nowhere," "THOUGHTS" not "choices. For another thing, I said they "weren't."​

Which you now counter with

"Yet you said there was no choosing. Then how is me scratching my nose any different?"​

Insisting that I was somehow speaking of choosing in post 77. Now, if you insist on misquoting me so as to make your point then I may as well abandon this discussion.

Yes, I make a choice which determines what I do. However I disagree with it being inexorable because I can be persuaded by many things which may change the outcome.

Okay, if you're going to continue to simply insist you make choices without addressing the operation of making these choices, which is crucial to defending your claim---simply repeating "I have choices" isn't going to do it---then I have nothing more to say.

So you are saying a killer or a rapist have no choice and therefore should not be blamed for their actions.

Blame is an act of censuring; a moral judgment, which is up to each individual. That said, of course if one imposes blames, they did so because they could not do otherwise. But just as stones should not be faulted for where they sit, neither should killers and rapists be faulted for what they did. Want to censure killers and rapists? Then you may as well censure stones as well.

From birth they were destined to kill or rape, or become a Christian or a Atheist for that matter. Whatever your belief are or someone else's beliefs are. They had no choice in the matter.

Bingo! Now you've got it.

The determinist definition of choice.

Okay I'll give it to you (From an on-line dictionary)

Choice:
noun
1. an act or instance of choosing; selection:

2. the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option:

3. the person or thing chosen or eligible to be chosen :

4. an alternative:​

Just like the definition everyone else uses. Of course, just as a definition of dragons doesn't signify a counterpart in reality, neither does the definition of choice.

 

[Skwim]

So to say there is no choice is silly. The dilemma created by determinism is a false one created by redefining choice into something which doesn't exist.

See my reply above.

 

[4consideration]

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

I think of "free will" along the lines of having the freedom to establish one's intentions regarding a situation. It may involve making a choice, since our "will" is often discussed in relation to it's application to a situation, but I do not define it as the act of making a choice.

I think having free will means having the freedom to have a change of heart...and with each change of heart, I think we establish a new potential -- whether positive or negative.

I think we are entitled to that privilege, although I personally view it as also a responsibility to remain aware of how I direct my intentions, because I think it matters (not always immediately, but down the road) what kinds of things we actually hold in our heart, that motivates our actions.

 

[Nakosis]

Nothing to defend. It's simply the definition I and others believe best expresses the concept of "freewill." YOU'RE the one complaining that it makes freewill indefensible. To which I suggested that because this obviously doesn't suit you, that you come up with one of your own. Can't do it? Then the in-defensibility of freewill stands as is. I'm certainly not going to try to come up with a definition I believe is in error just to give you a chance to show I got it wrong. That would be a bit stupid, don't you think.

I've define freewill many times. It's the ability to do what you want to do.

However this determinist idea of freewill seems an obvious error regardless of how many people claim otherwise. You don't want to defend it fine. I suppose you really don't have a choice in the matter anyway.

And my position is that these so-called "choices" are no more than acts dictated by antecedent causes. Acts you had to do. Or to put it in your vernacular, acts you had no choice in doing.

And my position is that the only way it could be a matter of freewill is if these choices had reason or cause behind them. Freewill requires cause and choice.

So what do you want to argue? That you have no reason for the choices you make or that you don't choose your actions?

Back in post 77 I said

"these thoughts weren't random occurrences that materialized out of nowhere, but considerations that had reasons--causes behind them."​

You then replied.

"You want to define a choice as a "random occurrence that is materialized out of no where?" ​

To which I corrected you:

"Please re-read what I wrote. For one thing, I said " but these thoughts weren't random occurrences that materialized out of nowhere," "THOUGHTS" not "choices. For another thing, I said they "weren't."​

Which you now counter with

"Yet you said there was no choosing. Then how is me scratching my nose any different?"​

Insisting that I was somehow speaking of choosing in post 77. Now, if you insist on misquoting me so as to make your point then I may as well abandon this discussion.

How were you misquoted? We agree that randomness has nothing to do with it correct?

In your view, what is the difference between a impulse to scratch to scratch your nose and making a choice. I just want to understand if you see a difference. If you don't then you don't.

Okay, if you're going to continue to simply insist you make choices without addressing the operation of making these choices, which is crucial to defending your claim---simply repeating "I have choices" isn't going to do it---then I have nothing more to say.

It is not crucial to defending my position and I can understand you having nothing more to say since you are using definitions you feel no need to defend. So feel free to withdraw from the discussion.

Blame is an act of censuring; a moral judgment, which is up to each individual. That said, of course if one imposes blames, they did so because they could not do otherwise. But just as stones should not be faulted for where they sit, neither should killers and rapists be faulted for what they did. Want to censure killers and rapists? Then you may as well censure stones as well.

Sure why should we attempt to move stones from where they lay? Because we believe we can make a better world by doing so. Determinism say we can't do anything to make any difference in how the world is going to be. So then why bother trying? Whereas I know I can manipulate the world according to my desires.

Bingo! Now you've got it.

Ok, just wanted to verify your view of things.

Okay I'll give it to you (From an on-line dictionary)

Choice:
noun
1. an act or instance of choosing; selection:

2. the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option:

3. the person or thing chosen or eligible to be chosen :

4. an alternative:​

Just like the definition everyone else uses. Of course, just as a definition of dragons doesn't signify a counterpart in reality, neither does the definition of choice.

So which of these definitions do you believe doesn't occur?
Or if you believe they all occur, then don't we agree that choice happens?

 

[Nakosis]

See my reply above.

Right so either choice exists or it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist then don't we have a definition for something which doesn't exist?

 

[Nakosis]

You can insert whatever mechanics of decision making you like. The test for freedom doesn't require a model of the mechanism making the choice.

It's just much more *clear* when you can also see the mechanism.

There's no guarantee that an understanding of a computer process makes understanding freewill in humans any clearer. The connection at best is an assumption, Until we know more about the process of the brain and mind, I think we should not yet jump to any conclusions.

Determinism I think jumps to a conclusion about freewill I don't see it being able to positively support. I just don't see any thing there to hang your hat on yet.

 

[Nakosis]

So I'll rewrite this so Skwim hopefully doesn't continue to think I was trying to mis-quote him.

I agree Some random synapse fires and I scratch my nose. That's not a choice.

However, You still want to say it's not a "true choice" unless you take away everything that makes it an actual choice?

You seemed to imply there was an difference between "choice" and impulsive response I thought there might be some common ground to explore.

Two points. Does randomness happen? If so that defeats determinism.
If randomness doesn't occur, how then is making a choice different then scratching an itch?

The point of the second statement is the idea that it can only be a "true choice" if there is no cause. You said there was no true choosing. So what does that mean in the context of the definitions you provided?

 

[JerryL]

Is there a difference between me and my brain?

Personally I would say "no", though it's not germane to my assertion.

Because I know the difference. I don't know any who goes about calling a computer a calculator.

I do. I could go into details, but it would get lengthy as we would have to discuss both the variations on calculator and on computers.

Except I don't believe computers or calculators have consciousness, at least yet.

No. Nor do I believe either is made of meat. Those are not the ways in which the two are similar.

You really can't compare a transistor to a calculator and certainly not a computer and certainly not a brain nor a conscious individual.

Of course I can.

For example: Neither one can act other than as dictated by the conditions of everything at the time.

Freedom and choice have to go together. For example, say I'm in prison for whatever reason. I am no longer free to go wherever I wish. I am no longer free to make that choice. However once I get out of prison, I am now free to choose where I want to go.

You are free in that the guards will not stop you. You are not free in that your choice is entirely dictated by the state of everything.

When I let go of the rock in my hand it is free to choose to fall.

 

[JerryL]

I only brought up computers to show that freewill is unnecessary in the mechanism of choice. Choosing does not require freewill. However freewill does requires the ability to make a choice unrestricted by something that prevents someone from making that choice.

So to say there is no choice is silly. The dilemma created by determinism is a false one created by redefining choice into something which doesn't exist.

I have not said that there is no choice. I said that, if the determining factor was randomness then there was no choice. If the determining factor was not random then choice was not free.

The dropped rock may chose to fall to the ground.

 

[JerryL]

There's no guarantee that an understanding of a computer process makes understanding freewill in humans any clearer. The connection at best is an assumption, Until we know more about the process of the brain and mind, I think we should not yet jump to any conclusions.

That's not what I said. What I said was that the lack of freedom was easier to see in a computer (because the mechanisms of choice can be illustrated more clearly)

If decisions were, say, made by metaphysical souls; I'd be hard pressed to show *how* decisions come about. But in the end I don't care about the mechanism because the results tell me if they are deterministic or not.

Determinism I think jumps to a conclusion about freewill I don't see it being able to positively support. I just don't see any thing there to hang your hat on yet.

It's possible "not determinism", in which case the non-deterministic part is effectively random. Imposition of randomness isn't choice. Determinism isn't free.

 

[Thief]

Looks like word play to me.

So coincidence and circumstance drop choices in your path.....
and you stand there and look without response because you have no will?

Oh! but you do!.....and some action of your hand then takes place!
and it was simply that you thought you should?....or you felt like it?

or did your hand flinch?....all by it's self?

 

[Nakosis]

Personally I would say "no", though it's not germane to my assertion.

Ok, just making sure we are talking about me and not something else.

I do. I could go into details, but it would get lengthy as we would have to discuss both the variations on calculator and on computers.

No you'd just have to understand that computers are capable of making decisions.

No. Nor do I believe either is made of meat. Those are not the ways in which the two are similar.

The brain is made of meat and a car runs on noises.
There is a degree of complexity of the brain and how a car runs which require some degree of understanding. You can't ignore the complexity and still think to derive an accurate analysis.

Of course I can.

For example: Neither one can act other than as dictated by the conditions of everything at the time.

Not everything. For example the current temperature of Sao Paulo Brazil I don't think matters much to whether I eat jam with my peanut butter sandwich or not. You can't simplify everything to what you personally understand and assume to have it figured out. There remain a myriad of things we don't know.

You are free in that the guards will not stop you. You are not free in that your choice is entirely dictated by the state of everything.

When I let go of the rock in my hand it is free to choose to fall.

What dreams, aspirations, culture, beliefs affected the fall of the rock? I believe the mechanism here is called gravity. You would equate the life of an individual to the control of gravity?