What do we do while deciding if free will exists?

[The Grand Nudger]

See...I knew it was important to you that free will was "really real"...lol.......

Let's say I have a decision to make-- among the various candies in the candy aisle. 

assuming your conclusion...but I'll let it slide..lol.

I experience desire, then I look at the different candies and experience my emotional reaction to each one. I go back and forth until one of the candies really catches my fancy. I choose that candy, buy it, and eat it. Was this a process of free will? Well, if not, I didn't actually make a decision.

Granted.

 Nor was there even a "me,"

Doesn't follow.....here you go again..."no free will...then no -x- neener neener"......right from the very beginning.....there's just no other way you can argue free will..is there?

 by which I mean a free-willed agent capable of arbitrating decisions.

 
Precisely the point of contention.  You don;t -have- to be a free willed agent capable of arbitrating decisions to be -something-.

There was just the awareness of a deterministic process, and the "decision" was illusory because my choice was inevitable.

also doesn't follow, nor would the world need to be deterministic.  Could've been a random event in a random universe, still no free will involved.

 The joy of eating the candy was equally illusory-- there's no "joy" in the universe; it's just a word I give to mechanical processes.

sounds to me..from your description..like there was joy after all...you just described what joy was in that thought experiment - a mechanical process.

In other words, a view of the human experience without free will means that each of us is here purely as an observer: watching a virtual movie, in essence. But that view of human experience doesn't really describe it very well. It seems to me very much that I'm an active participant.

Sure.....but "active participant" does not mean "free willed".

[Mudhammam]

Yeah..yeah...and I've commented on the silliness of immediately falling to such statements before.   I don't think that I have to take your free will to have any of that -in fact I know that I don't.....but if I did..oh well, so what if they all were nothing? 
I'm afraid that if this "free will or you can't have x" is the best free will has going for it...it's in a pretty sorry state. I could probably replace "free will" with some other thing and you'd be able to recognize all of the ways to rip that statement to shreds without any help from me. Here's a hint....my substitute is invisible and begins with a "g".

I'm not sure why you have discomfort differentiating between the reality of being human and the physical reality underlying the universe.  They aren't the same.  A desk is real-- but physically speaking, it's not real in the way that it's real for me when I touch it and look at it.  Light is real, too, but physically speaking, it is not real iln the way that it's real for me when I experience it.
The "as I experience things" of qualia is always different than the physical reality.  So how do we treat this fact?  Do we just sweep it under the rug with a red herring: "people are physical, too, and so are our minds"?  But this doesn't address the fact that what we think is real and what is "really, really real" are already known not to be the same at all.
I don't much care if free will is "really, really real."  It's real in the context of the human experience of life, and that is the context in which I live out my existence.
Let's say I have a decision to make-- among the various candies in the candy aisle. I experience desire, then I look at the different candies and experience my emotional reaction to each one. I go back and forth until one of the candies really catches my fancy. I choose that candy, buy it, and eat it. Was this a process of free will? Well, if not, I didn't actually make a decision. Nor was there even a "me," by which I mean a free-willed agent capable of arbitrating decisions. There was just the awareness of a deterministic process, and the "decision" was illusory because my choice was inevitable. The joy of eating the candy was equally illusory-- there's no "joy" in the universe; it's just a word I give to mechanical processes.
In other words, a view of the human experience without free will means that each of us is here purely as an observer: watching a virtual movie, in essence. But that view of human experience doesn't really describe it very well. It seems to me very much that I'm an active participant.

I see "free will" and "determinism" as equally valid concepts, but applied in different contexts. The same goes for material objects conceived as "fields" or "subatomic particles" and the "yellow desk" or "soft pillow" one perceives and touches as they lay their head upon it. Neither of these are incorrect descriptions, they simply apply to a situation in different respects. When bennyboy acts as an autonomous individual selecting the candy bar that his appetite desires, after a short period of deliberation, he is acting freely according to his will. His will is to purchase his favored candy bar at the moment it seems pleasing and appropriate to do so, and he chooses to act upon his will. The degree of freedom in his choice is defined by external and internal factors, his "nature and nurture" as others call it, the incalculably large number of circumstances that equal his environment at a given time; also the disposition of his character, including both rational and irrational components, otherwise known as "reasons" and "passions." The experience in which we partake when deliberating within ourselves, and often more wisely, with others---by way of concepts and a correct understanding of their applications, in conjunction with our desires, which we have been taught or directed towards---is appropriately called "degrees of freedom" or "free will." This is what it feels like to be an autonomous self, and it is also how it appears. I don't see any mystery in that. My brain contains a set of definitions and a set of sensations to which these relate. I work my way through the world using the former to translate the latter and in doing so enable myself to consider antecedents and their consequences prior to the occurrence. This gives me something of an overview of the situation in which I experience a mental process that is best described as a selection between alternatives. As thoughts more or less spontaneously generate in our minds, influenced by objects in the purview of our senses, we act in accordance with the reasons or natural impulses that appear most beneficial to the ends we either consciously, subconsciously, or even unconsciously seek to achieve. Again, this feels like freedom in every definite sense of the word, as it should.
That doesn't negate the fact that every moment proceeding another is also rightly conceived as a series of perhaps billions or trillions of antecedents that led to the current result. In the same way that one must be educated to properly employ words and ideas, so too must one be trained in consideration of the real or apparent good and the real or apparent bad. How you behave, and the decisions you make, will reflect the character produced from repeated exercise in either of the two departments. As a physical process, we are never fully aware of the causes shaping our desires or the principles from and through which our chain of reasoning occurs in conscious deliberation. When a person says, "I chose X," they are correct in describing the situation as such in the context of human experience, but it tells us nothing about the deeper reality underlying ourselves, and this we can only approach by more precise definitions of "I" and "chose" and experimental data of the mechanics actually involved.

[bennyboy]

duplicate post, sorry

---

Doesn't follow.....here you go again..."no free will...then no -x- neener neener"......right from the very beginning.....there's just no other way you can argue free will..is there?

Why should I feel compelled to make any argument other than the one that seems best to me? From my perspective, you are special pleading: all those OTHER abstracts, illusions and miconceptions are fine, but when it comes to free will, you want to throw a penalty flag. I'm saying that nothing we experience as humans-- absolutely nothing at all-- accurately represents reality. And yet we talk about love, beauty, morals, goodness and badness, etc. as meaningful terms. The problem is that the mechanical world view you hold doesn't represent what it's like to live and experience as a human being: it fails to describe it, or to contribute anything useful to it.

So let's take free will. If we have no free will, will you then open the jails, or will you continue to expect punishment for criminals, even though all their actions are just the spear-point of a series of deterministic events? Will you give up on achieving your dreams, knowing that your success or failure are not under the control of your free agency, which is illusory? Will you continue to debate on forums as though one free-thinking individual is actually debating with others, or will you just see it all as fluctuations in quantum fields?

This is the hypocrisy of the people who are against the idea of free will. They continue to ACT as though they believe very much in free will. And if anyone attempted to limit their freedoms, they'd squawk like angry hens-- they certainly would not see the behavior of their captors as inevitable, and therefore accept them.

[bennyboy]

That doesn't negate the fact that every moment proceeding another is also rightly conceived as a series of perhaps billions or trillions of antecedents that led to the current result. In the same way that one must be educated to properly employ words and ideas, so too must one be trained in consideration of the real or apparent good and the real or apparent bad. How you behave, and the decisions you make, will reflect the character produced from repeated exercise in either of the two departments. As a physical process, we are never fully aware of the causes shaping our desires or the principles from and through which our chain of reasoning occurs in conscious deliberation. When a person says, "I chose X," they are correct in describing the situation as such in the context of human experience, but it tells us nothing about the deeper reality underlying ourselves, and this we can only approach by more precise definitions of "I" and "chose" and experimental data of the mechanics actually involved.

What happens when you are presented with a field of data so massive as to be incalculable? I mean, absolutely and hopelessly incalculable?

It seems to me that you have to give up tracking the depths of reality, and rely on symbols and metaphors. If this weren't true, the term "butterfly effect" wouldn't exist. The difference between my position and Rhythm's, I think, is how we see the relationship between symbols and self. To me, the self IS the symbols and metaphors-- all the ideas that make up the world view. To Rhythm, I think, the self is a human animal with a brain, i.e. the self is the body which USES the symbols and metaphors.

[Mudhammam]

What happens when you are presented with a field of data so massive as to be incalculable? I mean, absolutely and hopelessly incalculable?

The same thing you do in every moment of your life! Lol. Your brain contains something of an "editing room" that cuts it down so as to make situations calculable. That's literally what a brain does! You are witness to this all of the time upon reflection. You experience that as a self contained in a body acting spontaneously or with a sense of justification.

It seems to me that you have to give up tracking the depths of reality, and rely on symbols and metaphors. If this weren't true, the term "butterfly effect" wouldn't exist. The difference between my position and Rhythm's, I think, is how we see the relationship between symbols and self. To me, the self IS the symbols and metaphors-- all the ideas that make up the world view. To Rhythm, I think, the self is a human animal with a brain, i.e. the self is the body which USES the symbols and metaphors.

It kind of sounds like a dispute between the meanings of human and human-itself, or self and self-itself... That's like boxing with your shadow.

[bennyboy]

It kind of sounds like a dispute between the meanings of human and human-itself, or self and self-itself... That's like boxing with your shadow.

Yeah, it borders on Buddhism: there's the you experiencing, and then the you watching the you experiencing, like a kind of voice in the background.

We totally do that: we are ourselves a collection of ideas: I'm this kind of guy, I'm that kind of guy both serves as your ego, but you can choose to think about them as objects of inquiry, and its makes a kind of closed loop-- the ideas that are what you are start thinking about the ideas that are what you are.

[Mudhammam]

It kind of sounds like a dispute between the meanings of human and human-itself, or self and self-itself... That's like boxing with your shadow.

Yeah, it borders on Buddhism: there's the you experiencing, and then the you watching the you experiencing, like a kind of voice in the background.

We totally do that: we are ourselves a collection of ideas: I'm this kind of guy, I'm that kind of guy both serves as your ego, but you can choose to think about them as objects of inquiry, and its makes a kind of closed loop-- the ideas that are what you are start thinking about the ideas that are what you are.

This is an interesting wiki: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

[The Grand Nudger]

duplicate post, sorry

---

Doesn't follow.....here you go again..."no free will...then no -x- neener neener"......right from the very beginning.....there's just no other way you can argue free will..is there?

Why should I feel compelled to make any argument other than the one that seems best to me? From my perspective, you are special pleading: all those OTHER abstracts, illusions and miconceptions are fine, but when it comes to free will, you want to throw a penalty flag. I'm saying that nothing we experience as humans-- absolutely nothing at all-- accurately represents reality. And yet we talk about love, beauty, morals, goodness and badness, etc. as meaningful terms. The problem is that the mechanical world view you hold doesn't represent what it's like to live and experience as a human being: it fails to describe it, or to contribute anything useful to it.

-except that I'm NOT making any such plea.  You and I both recognize that our perceptions run a range from -very descriptive in our framework- to -entirely false in some other framework-.  Those other abstracts and illusions are abstracts and illusions - and...like  magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat..they are something- even if they aren;t precisely what we experience them to be.  They have varying degrees of conformity with what they attempt to describe but none of them - so far as we can tell...are the proverbial "eyes as windows".  
You and I both agree to this, neither of us has ever disputed this in any conversation.  I'm suggesting that free will is -yet another- one of those abstracts and illusions.  That it doesn't work the way we experience it to work...as our eyes don;t work the way we experience them to work, as our skin doesn't work the way we experience it to work.  

So let's take free will.If we have no free will, will you then open the jails, or will you continue to expect punishment for criminals, even though all their actions are just the spear-point of a series of deterministic events? Will you give up on achieving your dreams, knowing that your success or failure are not under the control of your free agency, which is illusory? Will you continue to debate on forums as though one free-thinking individual is actually debating with others, or will you just see it all as fluctuations in quantum fields?

-again you have launched yourself into an appeal to consequence.  Your every comment has been an appeal to consequence.  Do you understand why I do not find this to be very useful?  Believe these questions have been covered many times.  
-No, I wouldn't open prisons.
-I don't expect punishment now.
-My dreams are my dreams.
-I will continue to succeed -and- fail.
-Is that how I seem to debate...to you....lol? -I'm providing input for your machine Benny.
-I don't see it that way now.

This is the hypocrisy of the people who are against the idea of free will.

-yes..Benny..please tell me all about my hypocrisy.....lol - because you seem to be such an expert on my position..as above........

They continue to ACT as though they believe very much in free will.

That's quite the claim.  Not really sure how you'd know much about the way I act?  
-I don't act like there's a man behind my eyes looking through two windows.  Even though this describes the experience...I know that to be untrue, and so I apply a little salt..with the things that my eyes tell me.
-I don't act as though I insert some -decision (non)stuff- into the universe everytime I pick a payday over a snickers.  If you'd like to watch me pick a candy bar out....you'll find that I comport myself in a manner entirely unbefitting an event of that importance.  It looks a whole hell of alot like I'm picking a snickers off a shelf.  I don't even light fireworks for the occasion.  

And if anyone attempted to limit their freedoms, they'd squawk like angry hens-- they certainly would not see the behavior of their captors as inevitable, and therefore accept them.

Why.....would anyone attempt to limit someones freedoms?  
Massive, repeated, unapologetic appeals to consequence /thread  
None of this...regardless of it's importance, regardless of what either of our positions are, regardless of what position is "best", regardless of how many consequences there may be...none of it....has any power in helping us to determine whether or not we have free will.  None of it can tell us whether our experience of free will is an accurate derscription of it;s operation...or, whether, like all of our senses, it is an accurate descriptions of the operating limits of it's implementation.  It;s useless....for that discussion.
-As to the other discussion.....none of your consequences seem to apply to me or my position on free will.  So I don't know what to tell you there bud.  Go find someone who holds those positions as consequences of their stance on the existence and operation of free will...ask them those questions?  


-as to the post above, interesting stuff. To me, it seems like there is no you - and then- you. I'm doing both, no extra operators...no voices other than my own.