Freewill
 

I have the right answer and can prove it as much as a man can prove that 2+2 = 4 but whats your opinions?

Re: Freewill
 

wat

Re: Freewill
 

I define free will as the belief that, although I just made choice C, I could have made choice !C.

In other words, I define "free will" as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property. This definition solves the "problem" of free will by converting it to a tautological psychologism.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
I define free will as the belief that, although I just made choice C, I could have made choice !C.

In other words, I define "free will" as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property. This definition solves the "problem" of free will by converting it to a tautological psychologism.

[/ QUOTE ]

take yourself less seriously?

Re: Freewill
 

Um, what level are you on? I don't get it.

It's just clearer to write "I define" than "Some people define". Sorry if that offended your delicate sensibilities.

Do you have any comments on the actual topic?

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
I define free will as the belief that, although I just made choice C, I could have made choice !C.

In other words, I define "free will" as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property. This definition solves the "problem" of free will by converting it to a tautological psychologism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this approach. I've always said that whether we have free will or not, either way it's not a testable hypothesis. In this paradigm the illusion of free will is just as good as actual free will, so it's best not to fret about it.

Re: Freewill
 

He's just telling you to loosen up a bit. It's not a bad thing. Probably wasn't leveling you.

Free will does exist, and the C/!C situation is essentially accurate.

Choices affect choices though. And in a larger system of choices approaching infinity, you can begin to see that it has to exist or there is a static ennui in which nothing happens.

Even in situations where an individual has absolute control over the other, free will exists, even if it is in the hands of the individual in control.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have the right answer and can prove it as much as a man can prove that 2+2 = 4 but whats your opinions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shall we have a contest then? Someone from the board will prove that 2+2=4, and you shall prove your position on free will. We will then see whose proof is better, or if it is in fact a tie.

I'm a big proponent of free will, but I recognize that it's not possible to prove one way or the other, and you should recognize that also. I'd love to see you try to prove it though.

Re: Freewill
 

What could possibly give anyone free will?

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]

Do you have any comments on the actual topic?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

Re: Freewill
 

Any thoughts on the implications of free will not existing?

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
What could possibly give anyone free will?

[/ QUOTE ]

We could have free will if it turns out not to be the case that the universe is deterministic. I think quantum mechanics has caused some serious doubt over whether or not that is the case. Also, and I'll get mocked for saying this, it is possible there is some aspect of our consciousness that is independent of the physical world, making it consequently free from determinism.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
What could possibly give anyone free will?

[/ QUOTE ] You have a poor imagination.

Re: Freewill
 

"Any thoughts on the implications of free will not existing? "

It makes it awfully hard to blame people for things they had no choice in doing.

Re: Freewill
 

I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Any thoughts on the implications of free will not existing? "

It makes it awfully hard to blame people for things they had no choice in doing.

[/ QUOTE ]
True and I think that's a good thing. Less hate = good. Of course we will still want to take measures to prevent them from harming us so punishment is still perfectly viable as a deterrent.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps "independent" was a poor choice of words. Consider the following analogy. A gamer may control a video game character. Within the game, it appears as though the character has no free will and is completely determined by the the events of game world. However, the character's actions are actually controlled by a user who is independent of the rules of the game. He watches his monitor and listens to the speakers to receive input from the game world, and he controls his character so that he affects the game world, but he is not bound by the same rules that the character is.

Now consider real-life to be the game and consciousness to be playing the game. Because there is interaction between consciousness and the physical world in decision making, that part of consciousness isn't really independent of the physical world, but decisions can be made that are not solely bound by the limitations of the physical world.

Re: Freewill
 

Do we know enough about the properties of our universe to bombastically come to a conclusion about free will?

(And this is a question, not a statement disguised as one).

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]

Do we know enough about the properties of our universe to bombastically come to a conclusion about free will?

(And this is a question, not a statement disguised as one).

[/ QUOTE ]

And the answer is no.

Although it seems some people just can't help themselves.

Re: Freewill
 

Where is the option for "It doesn't matter"?

Edit: Subfallen and AWoodside nailed it.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I define free will as the belief that, although I just made choice C, I could have made choice !C.

In other words, I define "free will" as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property. This definition solves the "problem" of free will by converting it to a tautological psychologism.

[/ QUOTE ]

take yourself less seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Subfallen, to some of us lesser mortals, it is difficult to understand what you are saying at times due to the language you use.

This is in no way a slur or attack on you, more a compliment i suppose, but this is not the first post you have made that has left me thinking 'WTF?'

As I have already said, this highlights my lack of vocabulary, and is not supposed to be negative towards you in any way. I just thought it might help you to understand the reply you recieved.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Any thoughts on the implications of free will not existing? "

It makes it awfully hard to blame people for things they had no choice in doing.

[/ QUOTE ]
True and I think that's a good thing. Less hate = good. Of course we will still want to take measures to prevent them from harming us so punishment is still perfectly viable as a deterrent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate.

In the above example, we have no choice regarding what measures we take....

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
Subfallen, to some of us lesser mortals, it is difficult to understand what you are saying at times due to the language you use.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] Part of the problem may be that I haven't read anything but philosophy for 3-4 months now. Here's a sample from what I'm reading at the moment, Heidegger's Being and Time (Macquarrie & Robinson translation):

[ QUOTE ]
Primordially 'truth' means the same as 'being-disclosive', as a way in which Dasein behaves. From this comes the derivative signification: 'the uncoveredness of entities'. Correspondingly, 'certainty', in its primordial signification, is tantamount to 'Being-certain', as a kind of Being which belongs to Dasein. However, in a derivative signification, any entity of which Dasein can be certain will also get called something 'certain'.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's an unusually concrete analysis for Heidegger. On the average he stays more abstract, along the lines of:

[ QUOTE ]
The character of understanding as projection is constitutive for Being-in-the-world with regard to the disclosedness of its existentially constitutive state-of-Being by which the factical potentiality-for-Being gets its leeway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Any thoughts on the implications of free will not existing? "

It makes it awfully hard to blame people for things they had no choice in doing.

[/ QUOTE ]
True and I think that's a good thing. Less hate = good. Of course we will still want to take measures to prevent them from harming us so punishment is still perfectly viable as a deterrent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate.

In the above example, we have no choice regarding what measures we take....

[/ QUOTE ]

we always have a choice, it's just not free.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Subfallen, to some of us lesser mortals, it is difficult to understand what you are saying at times due to the language you use.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] Part of the problem may be that I haven't read anything but philosophy for 3-4 months now. Here's a sample from what I'm reading at the moment, Heidegger's Being and Time (Macquarrie & Robinson translation):

[ QUOTE ]
Primordially 'truth' means the same as 'being-disclosive', as a way in which Dasein behaves. From this comes the derivative signification: 'the uncoveredness of entities'. Correspondingly, 'certainty', in its primordial signification, is tantamount to 'Being-certain', as a kind of Being which belongs to Dasein. However, in a derivative signification, any entity of which Dasein can be certain will also get called something 'certain'.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's an unusually concrete analysis for Heidegger. On the average he stays more abstract, along the lines of:

[ QUOTE ]
The character of understanding as projection is constitutive for Being-in-the-world with regard to the disclosedness of its existentially constitutive state-of-Being by which the factical potentiality-for-Being gets its leeway.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You nailed it.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Any thoughts on the implications of free will not existing? "

It makes it awfully hard to blame people for things they had no choice in doing.

[/ QUOTE ]
True and I think that's a good thing. Less hate = good. Of course we will still want to take measures to prevent them from harming us so punishment is still perfectly viable as a deterrent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate.

In the above example, we have no choice regarding what measures we take....

[/ QUOTE ]

we always have a choice, it's just not free.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. Even if we have no free will we still must engage in deliberation and rational decision making to accomplish our wants and needs. In a sense we must act as if we have free will, because we have the experience of it. But we cannot change our wants (i.e. what motivates us). We might have a desire to change our desires and that is not impossible, but we cannot change the totality of our desire system at any given moment. Our actions would be 100% predictable to someone who knew everything there was to know about the present, even many years in advance. But we cannot not act as if we have free will. The difference I think the thought that there is no free will can make is, as I've said, giving us less reason to hate others. I hope that makes some sort of sense.

Re: Freewill
 

It is a paradoxical arguement.

If we believe there is no free will, then our feelings towards everything are irrelevant, as our actions are pre-determined.

Man.

I want to type more, but don't think I have the choice to do it.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is a paradoxical arguement.

If we believe there is no free will, then our feelings towards everything are irrelevant, as our actions are pre-determined.

Man.

I want to type more, but don't think I have the choice to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you do.

Re: Freewill
 

i dont see much room for freewill. it might exist though, and i kind of hope it does.

but as a few have mentioned, we still have to act 'as though' it exists, since we have decisions to make and lives to live.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is a paradoxical arguement.

If we believe there is no free will, then our feelings towards everything are irrelevant, as our actions are pre-determined.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pre-determined != irrelevant. Otherwise no one would watch films or read stories.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
I define free will as the belief that, although I just made choice C, I could have made choice !C.

In other words, I define "free will" as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property. This definition solves the "problem" of free will by converting it to a tautological psychologism.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is my view, it dismisses the notion of free will as something incompatible with determinism. Therefore it's not relevant.

In terms of the common definition of free will, as some (usually supernatural) nondeterministic phenomenon, I think the answer "no" stands out as the most rational. There is certainly no evidence to the contrary, and that's about all I need. Of course, it's impossible to completely disprove free will, and given our current level of knowledge we can't even say that free will is necessarily implausible.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps "independent" was a poor choice of words. Consider the following analogy. A gamer may control a video game character. Within the game, it appears as though the character has no free will and is completely determined by the the events of game world. However, the character's actions are actually controlled by a user who is independent of the rules of the game. He watches his monitor and listens to the speakers to receive input from the game world, and he controls his character so that he affects the game world, but he is not bound by the same rules that the character is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a sloppy analogy because there is no "game world." There is a game loop (basically the program where the game processes are taking place - the graphic context is just an "arm" of that program). That game loop treats the buttons you press on the controller as inputs, and then translates those inputs into game terms.

In order for "free will" to exist in the real world, there would have to be a similar process. Something would have to translate inputs from the "otherworld" into physical responses in the brain. This process should be obvious on observation of certain brain patterns. Unfortunately, our ability to observe the brain is limited for now, so there remains the possibility of such a mechanism. But it's likely we'll overcome the limitations soon (within our lifetimes) and then either free will should be empirically obvious, or it will have nowhere to hide.

Regarding quantum mechanics... Certain quantum effects appear to be random - appear to be perfectly random, in fact. There are two points to recognize about this. First, probabilistic determinism is still determinism. Random events can't be predicted, but that's wholly irrelevant. That human actions may be random to some extent doesn't imply free will. But more important is the second point - because quantum randomness is empirically "truly" random (more random than the results of any pseudo-random number generator!), it's nonsensical for it to have patterned effects within the context of physics. Physicists have gone to great lengths to verify that there are no patterns in quantum randomness, so to suggest that quantum randomness (the only unexplained part of human functioning at the reductionistic level) has patterns when involved in decision-making is to suggest that somehow quantum physics starts to work completely differently when scientists aren't watching.

But it gets worse. Some people are unable to take a certain action if you disable a part of their brain. There are many sorts of odd situations in which affecting the brain affects basically every aspect of human functioning. Your idea of free will posits a "player" behind the scenes, interpreting independently from the brain. However, the ability to think, interpret, and decide changes depending on the state of the brain - this makes no sense if there really is an independent entity controlling the action.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Qualia.

But really, you're asking an unfair question.

If it's separate from the physical world, then it can't enter into the physical world in any way. Thus, it can't affect what any of us are typing here on this message board. And thus, it can't be expressed. Any physical response to your physical question misses the point.

(Incidentally, this means we can't - not just shouldn't, but can't - act on the basis of such a "thing." Our physical selves can't even know about this "thing." Therefore, in practical terms we can assume it doesn't exist. And in philosophical terms all we can do is speculate baselessly.)

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Qualia.

But really, you're asking an unfair question.

If it's separate from the physical world, then it can't enter into the physical world in any way. Thus, it can't affect what any of us are typing here on this message board. And thus, it can't be expressed. Any physical response to your physical question misses the point.

(Incidentally, this means we can't - not just shouldn't, but can't - act on the basis of such a "thing." Our physical selves can't even know about this "thing." Therefore, in practical terms we can assume it doesn't exist. And in philosophical terms all we can do is speculate baselessly.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, so how could such a thing be anything like what we mean by free will?

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Free will" is our conscious decisions. You can say they are not "free" because they may have consequences, or results, brought about by your environment, that you were not anticipating, however, you are free to choose. If you have choice C or !C, and each of them have a consequence, you have "free will" to decide which choice benefits you the most, taking into consideration the consequence. The fact that the choice you make has a cost, does not put a price tag on your will.

A practicing alcoholic has limited free will. A recovering alcoholic with 15 years sobriety has more free will than one with 6 months sobriety.

So, yes, one's "free will" is compromised based upon genetic makeup, environment, etc., however, nobody or no thing (God) or "collective things" is controlling our decisions, unless, we are unconscious of our behavior and remain dormant to changing the negative aspects of our personality.

We do not have "free will" over everything, such as emotion, although there are those who can walk over a bed of hot coals with their bare feet; the average joe has to resign himself to just trying to (thru a willful decision of his own free will) to absolve himself from destruction behavior, i.e., drinking himself to death, abnormal anger issues.

Some of us, due to our genetic makeup, have no control over some of our actions, i.e., mentally ill patients. Serial killers are mentally ill.

So, is our will free? Yes, if our genes are perfect, however, our decisions have a consequence.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Free will" is our conscious decisions. You can say they are not "free" because they may have consequences, or results, brought about by your environment, that you were not anticipating, however, you are free to choose. If you have choice C or !C, and each of them have a consequence, you have "free will" to decide which choice benefits you the most, taking into consideration the consequence. The fact that the choice you make has a cost, does not put a price tag on your will.

An practicing alcoholic has limited free will. A recovering alcoholic with 15 years sobriety has more free will than one with 6 months sobriety.

So, yes, one's "free will" is compromised based upon genetic makeup, environment, etc., however, nobody or no thing (God) or "collective things" is controlling our decisions, unless, we are unconscious of our behavior and remain dormant to changing the negative aspects of our personality.

We do not have "free will" over everything, such as emotion, although there are those who can walk over a bed of hot coals with their bare feet; the average joe has to resign himself to just trying to (thru a willful decision of his own free will) to absolve himself from destruction behavior, i.e., drinking himself to death, abnormal anger issues.

Some of, however, due to our genetic makeup, have no control over some of our actions, i.e., mentally ill patients. Serial killers are mentally ill.

So, is our will free? Yes, if our genes are perfect, however, our decisions have a consequence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are raised by a worthless mother, who fed you at McDonalds, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts a good portion of childhood, and you were 60lbs overweight when you left home and learned about proper diet in college, you would now have free will to choose what you will eat.

Your mind will crave the junk, your desire to break the cycle, if strong enough, will win the battle. Just like an alcoholic, mentally & physically addicted, can free his mind of the desire to drink over time.

Re: Freewill
 

There is no free will. The future already exists. At the root of everything are tiny mathematical formula/number series. However, there might be branching timeline/universes, in which case you get the illusion of freewill. If that's true, then you if you have to choose between A and B, you'll choose both, 1 in each branching timeline.

Re: Freewill
 

[ QUOTE ]


If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ] Is sense of self the same type of illusion that free will is, to determinists.