More about free will

[Skwim]

What does 'free' add to 'will' that it doesn't already have?

As Willamena said, "nothing, except it provides a useful term in discussions about predestination."

and, FWIW

"Will, in philosophy, refers to a property of the mind, and an attribute of acts intentionally committed."
source
​

I think the "intentionally" indicates the freedom of "freewill.".

 

[Straw Dog]

Not really, because the control is dictated by the sequence of cause/effect events leading up to it.

Initially caused yes, but not totally dictated to due to internal feedback loops that enable discipline and deliberation.

Not if their actions were dictated by the cause/effect events leading up to them, which happens to be the case. Things either happen because they are the end result of the causes that led up to them or they are entirely random. In either case it leaves no room for freewill. You did X instead of Y because you could do no differently. To do Y would have entailed a series of cause/effect events different than what lead to X, but they weren't so you had to do X.

I'm not arguing for an essential abstract freewill. I'm saying that internalized causes enable internal manipulation and management, hence self-responsibility.

Only that I know what it is on a nonparticipating level.

Well, perhaps an even more basic example is empathy. Whenever we fail to empathize with someone, we are only identifying with ourselves, ergo partial identification. Whenever we are successful in empathizing with others (identifying with their feelings and struggles), we have a more comprehensive understanding of the situation. This is what is meant by the flaw of relative identification.

 

[Skwim]

Initially caused yes, but not totally dictated to due to internal feedback loops that enable discipline and deliberation.

So you're saying that the caused effects inherent in these "internal feedback loops" don't act as causal agents themselves? That they don't cause your "discipline and deliberation." Well, something must have caused these discipline and deliberations, or did they just pop into existence? Of course they didn't, they were caused. So if it wasn't the caused effects that generated these internal feedback loops, which in turn led to the discipline and deliberation, just what was it?

I'm not arguing for an essential abstract freewill. I'm saying that internalized causes enable internal manipulation and management, hence self-responsibility.

But aside from absolute randomness the only other operating agent is cause/effect (determinism), which doesn't square with self-responsibility, as I understand your meaning.

Well, perhaps an even more basic example is empathy. Whenever we fail to empathize with someone, we are only identifying with ourselves, ergo partial identification. Whenever we are successful in empathizing with others (identifying with their feelings and struggles), we have a more comprehensive understanding of the situation. This is what is meant by the flaw of relative identification.

Which I fail to see as a matter of freewill vs. determinism.

 

[Straw Dog]

So you're saying that the caused effects inherent in these "internal feedback loops" don't act as causal agents themselves? That they don't cause your "discipline and deliberation." Well, something must have caused these discipline and deliberations, or did they just pop into existence? Of course they didn't, they were caused. So if it wasn't the caused effects that generated these internal feedback loops, which in turn led to the discipline and deliberation, just what was it?

No, not saying that.

We are the expression and management of internal causes. We are the causal agents manifested. You are treating causal agents as something seperate from personal expression. I am my causal agents.

But aside from absolute randomness the only other operating agent is cause/effect (determinism), which doesn't square with self-responsibility, as I understand your meaning.

Self-determinism does square with self-responsibility. No freewill required. I'm afraid that you do not understand my meaning. Are we not the expression and management of internal causes?

Which I fail to see as a matter of freewill vs. determinism.

It ties in with my earlier argument rather than a narrow-minded black and white freewill vs determinism debate. The reality is much more nuanced and complex than these inadequate models.

 

[Skwim]

No, not saying that.

We are the expression and management of internal causes.

In what way are we the management of internal causes? I've never been described as being management

We are the causal agents manifested.

No, if anything we are the effects of causes. Certainly not the causes themselves in total. We are far more than that.

You are treating causal agents as something seperate from personal expression.

So that biting mosquito that caused you to slap at it must also be a personal expression. Mosquitoes are personal expressions. Hmmm. I don't think so.

I am my causal agents.

What are these "my causal agents" ?

Self-determinism does square with self-responsibility.

Yes, in the freewill sense of: they (their self) freely determines their actions, and therefore would be responsible for them. But it isn't self-determinism (a very misleading term) I'm talking about, but naked determinism born of bare cause/effect. And that's the only sense in which it's meaningful when talking about freewill. You've unnecessarily muddied the waters by twisting determinism into something it isn't. Philosophical determinism, which is what we're talking about in the freewill v. determinism issue, is NOT the same determinism expressed by "self-determinism."

Are we not the expression and management of internal causes?

Again, I don't understand how we are the "management of internal causes." Please explain.

It ties in with my earlier argument rather than a narrow-minded black and white freewill vs determinism debate. The reality is much more nuanced and complex than these inadequate models.

I'm sorry, but digging up undefined notions relating to the self so as to dispose of determinism won't work. So, as much as determinism may seem too black and white, and not internally personal enough, the fact is it is just that black and white. And trying to process the cause/effect process through a morass of personal expressions isn't selling.

 

[Curious George]

If we have no free will, and the murder had no choice in the matter of killing someone, then the members of the jury would have no choice in whether or not they find him guilty.

If none of us have free will, then we can't meaningfully discuss the possibility of holding others responsible for their lack of free will. The murderer will do what he does, the jury will do what it does - neither have any choice or responsibility for their actions.

This. Only if freewill exists does a discussion or debate make sense? The idea of communication and persuasion are intertwined with that of the ego and freewill. Without a concept of self and the ego to believe one can change something, communication is pointless.

Furthermore, awareness, is also then pointless, because one's response cannot change any outcome.

Determinism speaks much of causality. The jump from something is to something will is based on causality. In order to make this jump we must assume causality.

The simple facts remain: I can unequivocally influence my environment; chasing down the rabbit hole of causality ultimately leads to an inductive assumption; There is no deductive rational end to causality, therefore any attempt to assert causality must employ circular reasoning; if we are going to rationally assume causality based on necessity and our intuition of a connection, why not too assume freewill for the same reason.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Perhaps "excuse" was the wrong word. Lack of free will doesn't make murder irrelevant. Legal systems can continue to function (without double-think) if shifted to a rehabilitation system rather than a retributive system.

Making such a shift requires someone with free-will. If free-will doesn't exist, this condition applies equally to non-murderers as it does to murderers.

Then again, if no free-will exists, you weren't capable of not responding to my post, nor was I capable of not posting this one. Our conversation is nothing but an automated script, and we have no meaningful input in what our views are or what we discuss.

 

[factseeker88]

This. Only if freewill exists does a discussion or debate make sense? The idea of communication and persuasion are intertwined with that of the ego and freewill. Without a concept of self and the ego to believe one can change something, communication is pointless.

Furthermore, awareness, is also then pointless, because one's response cannot change any outcome.

Determinism speaks much of causality. The jump from something is to something will is based on causality. In order to make this jump we must assume causality.

The simple facts remain: I can unequivocally influence my environment; chasing down the rabbit hole of causality ultimately leads to an inductive assumption; There is no deductive rational end to causality, therefore any attempt to assert causality must employ circular reasoning; if we are going to rationally assume causality based on necessity and our intuition of a connection, why not too assume freewill for the same reason.

What it comes down to is everything that happens is caused by something. Your post, for example, caused my response

:yes::yes::yes:

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

 

[Skwim]

Making such a shift requires someone with free-will.

Not at all. It can easily arise from the cause/effects that led up to the point of action. One is caused to do A rather than B because all cause/effect events leading up to that point dictated A rather than B. For B to happen there would have had to be one or more difference in the events leading up to the point of action, but there weren't so A was inevitable.

Then again, if no free-will exists, you weren't capable of not responding to my post, nor was I capable of not posting this one.

Sure you were. Responding to a post, like any other act, is caused. It doesn't materialize out of thin air.

Our conversation is nothing but an automated script, and we have no meaningful input in what our views are or what we discuss.

Not sure what you mean by "meaningful," but like it or not the fact remains that you can nothing other than what you're caused to do. The only other option is that what you do is absolutely random, you do things willy-nilly, which, of course, is certainly not compatible with the notion of freewil.:

 

[idav]

Will means having a certain amount of control. Adding free to it doesn't change what will is supposed to be. Everything having a cause doesn't allow will to come into the picture. The cause itself has to also be the will or it is just random events with no cause or intention. Something has to be causeless therefore that something has ultimate say. Random acts are not willed either so that isn't possible. The first thing to be in existence would necessarily be the first intention.

 

[Willamena]

But aside from absolute randomness the only other operating agent is cause/effect (determinism), which doesn't square with self-responsibility, as I understand your meaning.

Causation is a relation, not an agent. It's an agent that relates them.

(Randomness is a relation, too.)

 

[factseeker88]

Causation is a relation, not an agent. It's an agent that relates them.

IMO, causation is more like a force, than an agent, that only happens if the conditions are right -- relating with it, identifying with it, or feeling it.

:yes::yes::yes:

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

 

[Skwim]

Will means having a certain amount of control. Adding free to it doesn't change what will is supposed to be.

No it doesn't. I suspect "free" was attached to emphasize its controllable nature and further distance it from determinism.

Something has to be causeless therefore that something has ultimate say.

Why, although I do recognize the possible absolute randomness of some quantum events.

The first thing to be in existence would necessarily be the first intention.

Intention implies a mental act. Sure you want to go there, positing a mind as the first of all existing things in the universe? A mind whose necessary complexity would need to precede the whole of the mind itself?

Causation is a relation, not an agent. It's an agent that relates them.

I meant agent in the sense of function. My bad for using the term. :slap:

 

[factseeker88]

No it doesn't. I suspect "free" was attached to emphasize its controllable nature and further distance it from determinism.


Why, although I do recognize the possible absolute randomness of some quantum events.

Intention implies a mental act. Sure you want to go there, positing a mind as the first of all existing things in the universe? A mind whose necessarily complexity would seem to precede the whole of the mind itself?


I meant agent in the sense of function. My bad for using the term. :slap:

In this deterministic, cause and effect, stimulus and response world there is nothing but give and take, free will, free thoughts, free action, free anything, are only found in dreams. Your post, for example, stimulated my response.

:yes::yes::yes:

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]factseeker88[/FONT]


“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

 

[Curious George]

What it comes down to is everything that happens is caused by something. Your post, for example, caused my response

:yes::yes::yes:

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

Easy to say after the fact.

:yes::yes::yes:

You nor anyone can show that causality is anything more than an illusion, the same is true of freewill. Yet, you think and worry about your everyday choices. Why do you worry for no good reason?

 

[factseeker88]

Causation is a relation, not an agent. It's an agent that relates them.

(Randomness is a relation, too.)

Wilhelmina lyrics
by Danny Kaye

Wilhelmina
(Wilhelmina)
She's the cutest little girl
In Copenhagen
(In Copenhagen)

Wilhelmina
(Wilhelmina)
She has all the fellas
Crazy in the noggin
In Copenhagen

And the roses
On her cheeks
And the music
When she speaks
And how sweet
Her kisses taste
Sugar-canish,
Like my Mama''s Danish pastry

Wilhelmina
(Wilhelmina)
Maybe soon we will elope
In Copenhagen
(In Copenhagen)

Wilhelmina
(Wilhelmina)
We'll share everything
Including my tobaggan
In Copenhagen

All the other girls say "No"
But Wilhelmina, she says "Nein"
All the boys call Wilhelmina "Willy"
But I call Wilhelmina mine

(Wilhelmina
Maybe soon we will elope
In Copenhagen

Wilhelmina
We'll share everything
Including my tobaggan

All the other girls say "No"
But Wilhelmina, she says "Nein"
All the boys call Wilhelmina "Willy"
But I call Wilhelmina mine)

Wilhelmina,
Ja ?
She's the cutest little girl
In Copenhagen
Where ?
In Copenhagen
Oh !

Wilhelmina
Ja !
She has all the fellas
Crazy in the noggin
Where?
I told you, Copenhagen

Und de roses
In her cheek
Und de music
Ven she schpeaks
Und how sveet
Her kisses taste
Sugar-canish,
Like my Mama's Danish pastry

(Wilhelmina)
Wilhelmina
Maybe soon we will elope
In Copenhagen
(In Copenhagen)

(Wilhelmina)
Wilhelmina
We'll share everything
Including my tobaggan
(In Copenhagen)

All the other girls say "No"
But Wilhelmina, she says "Nein"
All the boys call Wilhelmina "Willy"
But I call Wilhelmina mine

:clap:clap:clap:clap

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]factseeker88[/FONT]


“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

 

[Willamena]

I meant agent in the sense of function.

It's not a function, either, in the sense of a process. It really is just a relation drawn between two observed things. If A, then B.

 

[Curious George]

It's not a function, either, in the sense of a process. It really is just a relation drawn between two observed things. If A, then B.

If a, then b is a function. A function is a relationship.

 

[Skwim]

In this deterministic, cause and effect, stimulus and response world there is nothing but give and take, free will, free thoughts, free action, free anything, are only found in dreams. Your post, for example, stimulated my response.

:yes::yes::yes:

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]factseeker88[/FONT]

You've got it.

It's not a function, either, in the sense of a process. It really is just a relation drawn between two observed things. If A, then B.

Sorry, but you've got it wrong. And why do they have to be observed things. This is a very curious restriction you've saddled it with.

 

[idav]

No it doesn't. I suspect "free" was attached to emphasize its controllable nature and further distance it from determinism.


Why, although I do recognize the possible absolute randomness of some quantum events.

Intention implies a mental act. Sure you want to go there, positing a mind as the first of all existing things in the universe? A mind whose necessary complexity would need to precede the whole of the mind itself?

The tao describes it a bit. The first thing was the if without any then. Everything now is the effect. The first thing to go "A, no B", was the first thing with intention. Not an intention like that of mind consciousness. Tao speaks of actionless action. Doing without will, going with the flow. Tao says such is the mystery of the beginnings.