(July 31, 2016 at 11:19 am)Irrational Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 10:39 am)RozKek Wrote: No one, it was either determined when the universe began or it's the same but partly random. You're just the observer and experiencer.

So no decision is made is what you're saying? Then what is this process we do then that appears as if it is a decision?

If the conservation of momentum and charge is true, then, yes, your decisions are all determined.

(July 31, 2016 at 11:19 am)Irrational Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 10:39 am)RozKek Wrote: No one, it was either determined when the universe began or it's the same but partly random. You're just the observer and experiencer.

So no decision is made is what you're saying? Then what is this process we do then that appears as if it is a decision?

A decision is just a word for a different action. It's just a way of communicating, it has no special meaning to it. You can't differ a decision from a desire physically. When one says a decision one refers to an act that has been thoroughly thought through. A desire for e.g chocolate hasn't been thoroughly thought through however both of them are simply just your neural net interacting with each other provoking feelings/actions etc. And your neural net is physical, it is governed by classical physics and is therefore determined. There's no freedom in it if it's already determined. Simply put, you're just aware of your decisions and they're a bit more complex compared to let's say your desires, but they're fundamentally the same physically speaking.

(July 30, 2016 at 9:09 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 30, 2016 at 2:12 pm)RozKek Wrote: Even expressing your intent as behavior is ultimately not under your control. And even by your definition of free will, it doesn't exist. Your personhood is not under your control either, that is also in the causal chain/determined or random. Sure, no one is holding a gun to your head, but that's not what we're all talking about. That's not the relevant free will. The "big" free will people generally talk about or think about is whether or not our decisions etc are ultimately under out control. 

The personhood doesn't NEED to be under control, because will is the expression of that personhood's intent.  Even intent itself doesn't need to be free-- it is the capacity to express intent that may/may not be free.

You're right.  There are some people who have religious or philosophical views of free will such that a sentient agent can at least to a degree transcend physical limitations.  I'm agnostic on whether such a thing is true.  HOWEVER, I'd argue that "magical" self would still be part of a bigger causal framework.  For example, in a Christian framework, God has created people according to their various natures, and their personhood, therefore, is not under their control anyway.

Quote:Yet again, your expression of the self isn't under your control either. Your definition is either irrelevant or nonsensical. You have a will, yes. Your will is the expression of the self, yes. But it's not free. Simply put, you have a will, that is your expression of the self, but your will is not free and that makes your expression of the self not free.

Sure it's free.  Nobody is either compelling me or preventing me from expressing my will according to my nature as a person.

I know it doesn't need to be free. But we're talking about free will and we're saying it's not free.

A sentient agent can't transcend physical limitations, that's why I've been asking, can you or you with your brain break the causal chain?

IIRC I pointed it out, that in the everyday life, sure if you want you can say it's free since no one's holding a gun to your head. However if you dig deeper down it's not free at all, that's what people refer to when they're talking about whether or not our will is free. If with free will people meant what you mean the question wouldn't even be asked because the answer would obviously be "of course it's free, no one's holding a gun to my head."

Compatibilist free will was introduced when some people realised that an ultimately free will couldn't exist. Compatibilist free will is irrelevant. The will where you're ultimately free is relevant, maybe not in the everyday life but let's say when you go into a court room. If the murderer literally had no choice at all but to commit what he did because it was determined to happen, is it really correct to sentence him to a lifetime prison or give him the electric chair? Or is it actually morally right to recondition the person so he/she becomes a functional human being that contributes to society in a positive way. This is just an example of why the free will people are talking about isn't your definition of free will because that's irrelevant

But thinking about it, even by the gun example, your will is still constricted/bound and cannot be changed at all, it will be what it is, so it is still not free. No one's holding a gun to your head, but classical physics got your will chained to itself, it's not free one way or another.

(July 31, 2016 at 10:27 am)RozKek Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 10:26 am)Irrational Wrote: Because you do what you want to do most of the time. Shouldn't this reasonably be deemed freedom?

No, because you don't decide what it is you want to do either.

Eh?  Who decides, then?  My mommy?

(July 31, 2016 at 1:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 10:27 am)RozKek Wrote: No, because you don't decide what it is you want to do either.

Eh?  Who decides, then?  My mommy?

Did you read the other posts first before trying to be clever?

(July 31, 2016 at 12:45 pm)RozKek Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 11:19 am)Irrational Wrote: So no decision is made is what you're saying? Then what is this process we do then that appears as if it is a decision?

A decision is just a word for a different action. It's just a way of communicating, it has no special meaning to it. You can't differ a decision from a desire physically. When one says a decision one refers to an act that has been thoroughly thought through. A desire for e.g chocolate hasn't been thoroughly thought through however both of them are simply just your neural net interacting with each other provoking feelings/actions etc. And your neural net is physical, it is governed by classical physics and is therefore determined. There's no freedom in it if it's already determined. Simply put, you're just aware of your decisions and they're a bit more complex compared to let's say your desires, but they're fundamentally the same physically speaking.

Thoroughly thought through? I thought you said we weren't aware of our decisions until after they are triggered?

Think more about what you're saying because you may be contradicting yourself a little here. And to be clear, neuroscientific studies don't exactly support all of what you're saying here, so on what other basis do you make these claims?

(July 31, 2016 at 12:40 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 11:19 am)Irrational Wrote: So no decision is made is what you're saying? Then what is this process we do then that appears as if it is a decision?

If the conservation of momentum and charge  is true, then, yes, your decisions are all determined.

Sure, determined by many factors, including the workings of one's brain.

(July 31, 2016 at 1:46 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 12:40 pm)Jehanne Wrote: If the conservation of momentum and charge  is true, then, yes, your decisions are all determined.

Sure, determined by many factors, including the workings of one's brain.

Yes, the brain is much more than some input/output device.

(July 31, 2016 at 1:03 pm)RozKek Wrote:

(July 30, 2016 at 9:09 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Sure it's free.  Nobody is either compelling me or preventing me from expressing my will according to my nature as a person.

I know it doesn't need to be free. But we're talking about free will and we're saying it's not free.

What you said doesn't match with what you quoted.

Quote:A sentient agent can't transcend physical limitations, that's why I've been asking, can you or you with your brain break the causal chain?

]
I think literally zero people are arguing the kind of free will you're talking about.

Quote:IIRC I pointed it out, that in the everyday life, sure if you want you can say it's free since no one's holding a gun to your head. However if you dig deeper down it's not free at all, that's what people refer to when they're talking about whether or not our will is free. If with free will people meant what you mean the question wouldn't even be asked because the answer would obviously be "of course it's free, no one's holding a gun to my head."

You're right. It's obvious. Nobody would argue against it. Oh. . . . wait a minute. . .

Quote:Compatibilist free will was introduced when some people realised that an ultimately free will couldn't exist. Compatibilist free will is irrelevant. The will where you're ultimately free is relevant, maybe not in the everyday life but let's say when you go into a court room. If the murderer literally had no choice at all but to commit what he did because it was determined to happen, is it really correct to sentence him to a lifetime prison or give him the electric chair? Or is it actually morally right to recondition the person so he/she becomes a functional human being that contributes to society in a positive way. This is just an example of why the free will people are talking about isn't your definition of free will because that's irrelevant

"Compatibilist" isn't really a kind of free will. Compatibilism is the philosophical idea that free will can be reconciled with determinism, specifically with determinist brain function. And nothing about our life experience, including the fact that we can freely choose things, is "irrelevant" except to those who want to fit the world into a small world view.

Quote:But thinking about it, even by the gun example, your will is still constricted/bound and cannot be changed at all, it will be what it is, so it is still not free. No one's holding a gun to your head, but classical physics got your will chained to itself, it's not free one way or another.

You still aren't working with my definition of either will or free will. I'm not sure to whom you are speaking.

(July 31, 2016 at 1:03 pm)RozKek Wrote: IIRC I pointed it out, that in the everyday life, sure if you want you can say it's free since no one's holding a gun to your head.

I disagree, fundamentally, with this analogy, even though I am a "mad dog" determinist, and even though I had heard scholars, such as Professor Daniel Dennett, appeal to it.  If someone was holding a gun to my head, I just might tell them to "go fuck themselves."  I guess that it would depend on what they were asking me to do and what mood I was in at the time.

Even though I do not hold to any positive belief in any afterlife, I very much care about my posthumous reputation.