(July 31, 2016 at 1:43 pm)Irrational Wrote:

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

What I meant is you're aware of the thought process when making a decision, evaluating etc. However that wasn't the point. Point was that they're fundamentally the same. Both of them are simply neurons interacting and neurons are physical things therefore they're governed by classical physics and are therefore determined, there's no free if it's already determined. I'm quite surprised that you guys still haven't answered this question. Can you break the causal chain? Why do you avoid that question?

And for the record it doesn't matter when or whether you're aware of your decisions, they're still causal, the neurons that control every action you do are causal, they're determined, you are not an agent that can do something to change their movement resulting in changing the effect of their movement/interaction. You're simply an observer and experiencer. I am basing my claims on physics.

(July 31, 2016 at 2:10 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(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.

"If you want you can say it's free" but it still really isn't free, that's what I got into. In reality it still isn't free.

(July 31, 2016 at 2:25 pm)RozKek Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 2:10 pm)Jehanne Wrote: 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.

"If you want you can say it's free" but it still really isn't free, that's what I got into. In reality it still isn't free.

I don't think that it is free.  If the conservation laws apply everywhere throughout the Universe, then they also apply within one's head.

(July 31, 2016 at 2:26 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 2:25 pm)RozKek Wrote: "If you want you can say it's free" but it still really isn't free, that's what I got into. In reality it still isn't free.

I don't think that it is free.  If the conservation laws apply everywhere throughout the Universe, then they also apply within one's head.

I think you're arguing against the wrong person here  Anyway, I agree with you. I don't believe that free will exists under any circumstances, just the irrelevant definitions of it, but yeah. They're irrelevant.

(July 31, 2016 at 2:22 pm)RozKek Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 1:43 pm)Irrational Wrote: 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?

What I meant is you're aware of the thought process when making a decision, evaluating etc. However that wasn't the point. Point was that they're fundamentally the same. Both of them are simply neurons interacting and neurons are physical things therefore they're governed by classical physics and are therefore determined, there's no free if it's already determined. I'm quite surprised that you guys still haven't answered this question. Can you break the causal chain? Why do you avoid that question?

And for the record it doesn't matter when or whether you're aware of your decisions, they're still causal, the neurons that control every action you do are causal, they're determined, you are not an agent that can do something to change their movement resulting in changing the effect of their movement/interaction. You're simply an observer and experiencer. I am basing my claims on physics.

Regarding the causal chain question, I answered that question a few pages back, remember? And you actually responded to that, remember?

I don't agree that I'm just an observer and experiencer of my decisions. I also play a role in formulating these decisions even if I'm only conscious of them after they are made. You seem to think that I am only my conscious part of the self.

(July 31, 2016 at 2:34 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 2:22 pm)RozKek Wrote: What I meant is you're aware of the thought process when making a decision, evaluating etc. However that wasn't the point. Point was that they're fundamentally the same. Both of them are simply neurons interacting and neurons are physical things therefore they're governed by classical physics and are therefore determined, there's no free if it's already determined. I'm quite surprised that you guys still haven't answered this question. Can you break the causal chain? Why do you avoid that question?

And for the record it doesn't matter when or whether you're aware of your decisions, they're still causal, the neurons that control every action you do are causal, they're determined, you are not an agent that can do something to change their movement resulting in changing the effect of their movement/interaction. You're simply an observer and experiencer. I am basing my claims on physics.

Regarding the causal chain question, I answered that question a few pages back, remember? And you actually responded to that, remember?

I don't agree that I'm just an observer and experiencer of my decisions. I also play a role in formulating these decisions even if I'm only conscious of them after they are made. You seem to think that I am only my conscious part of the self.

Ahh, you're correct. I forgot about it my bad. 

Irrational Wrote: Perhaps you're asking the wrong question. This is not a challenge for compatibilists, but rather for libertarians. A compatibilist can perfectly say you can't break the causal chain but still have free will because free will is not about the ability to break causal chains.

However, I thought about this again.

RozKek Wrote: 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.

Now we're back to adressing the causal chain issue. You're playing a role in your decisions, if you want to you can say that, but let's say you decided to go for decision B out of all the decisions. Why you decided to go for decision B isn't ultimately your choice because it's in the causal chain i.e your neurons moved in a certain caused way causing you to decide decision B and your neurons are governed by classical physics in other words they're determined and like said there's no free if it's already determined. If you cannot break it then you cannot have free will. Now you're the one contradicting yourself. You can't have a free will where you're the one ultimately deciding while at the same time you can't break the causal chain, it's nonsensical. Yes you can decide, but it's not free aslong as you cannot break the causal chain, and ultimately decide for yourself.

A compatibilist can say we have free will and can't break the causal chain, but the free he speaks about is e.g that no one's holding a gun to his head but his will is instead constrained by classical physics and the causal chain. 

Tell me, how are you free if you're already determined to do what you're going to do something? How can you possibly change something that has been determined? If you say you can then you're implying that you can break the causal chain, but you can't.

(July 31, 2016 at 3:08 pm)RozKek Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 2:34 pm)Irrational Wrote: Regarding the causal chain question, I answered that question a few pages back, remember? And you actually responded to that, remember?

I don't agree that I'm just an observer and experiencer of my decisions. I also play a role in formulating these decisions even if I'm only conscious of them after they are made. You seem to think that I am only my conscious part of the self.

Ahh, you're correct. I forgot about it my bad. 

Irrational Wrote: Perhaps you're asking the wrong question. This is not a challenge for compatibilists, but rather for libertarians. A compatibilist can perfectly say you can't break the causal chain but still have free will because free will is not about the ability to break causal chains.

However, I thought about this again.

RozKek Wrote: 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.

Now we're back to adressing the causal chain issue. You're playing a role in your decisions, if you want to you can say that, but let's say you decided to go for decision B out of all the decisions. Why you decided to go for decision B isn't ultimately your choice because it's in the causal chain i.e your neurons moved in a certain caused way causing you to decide decision B and your neurons are governed by classical physics in other words they're determined and like said there's no free if it's already determined. If you cannot break it then you cannot have free will. Now you're the one contradicting yourself. You can't have a free will where you're the one ultimately deciding while at the same time you can't break the causal chain, it's nonsensical. Yes you can decide, but it's not free aslong as you cannot break the causal chain, and ultimately decide for yourself.

A compatibilist can say we have free will and can't break the causal chain, but the free he speaks about is e.g that no one's holding a gun to his head but his will is instead constrained by classical physics and the causal chain. 

Tell me, how are you free if you're already determined to do what you're going to do something? How can you possibly change something that has been determined? If you say you can then you're implying that you can break the causal chain, but you can't.

All this boils down to is you not willing to accept the application of certain reasonable definitions of freedom other than that one definition that you have in mind.

(July 31, 2016 at 2:07 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

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

Many many people are arguing the kind of free will I'm talking about, yours is irrelevant. Who cares if a thief is holding a gun to my head, of fucking course by your definition the answer is going to be "well a thief isn't holding a gun to my head therefore I have free will" If the answer was so simple it wouldn't have been a hot topic for three thousands of years. It's only your irrelevant definition that has a simple answer. Also if people aren't debating my definition of free will why are they classified under determinism and indeterministim? Because people generally want to know if it ultimately is their decision. Have you ever watched Sam Harris talk about it? He even mentioned in one of his talks how his friend Daniel Dennett completely shifts the meaning of free will and then says, it exists.

And usually the compatibilist ideas of free will are dumbed down to "a thief isn't holding a gun to my head = free will, wow! problem solved!"

The free will I'm talking about is much more relevant when you're e.g going to sentence a criminal. That's what people are interested in, if one really ultimately is responsible for his actions. Your definition doesn't adress the question if one is ultimately responsible for ones action i.e if they could've done otherwise. Because if they cannot break the causal chain they couldn't have done otherwise at all, they might've been "capable" to, but what they were going to do was already determined. Your definition doesn't adress that question, that's why it's problematic.

In the end, if you can't break the causal chain, every single thing you do was bound to happen, you had no way of doing otherwise therefore your will still isn't free. Free will is an illusion in other words, it feels real, but it isn't real. Your intentions, will, they way you express yourself or intentions, everything is determined. How is it possibly free if it's already determined?

(July 31, 2016 at 3:14 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 3:08 pm)RozKek Wrote: Ahh, you're correct. I forgot about it my bad. 


However, I thought about this again.


Now we're back to adressing the causal chain issue. You're playing a role in your decisions, if you want to you can say that, but let's say you decided to go for decision B out of all the decisions. Why you decided to go for decision B isn't ultimately your choice because it's in the causal chain i.e your neurons moved in a certain caused way causing you to decide decision B and your neurons are governed by classical physics in other words they're determined and like said there's no free if it's already determined. If you cannot break it then you cannot have free will. Now you're the one contradicting yourself. You can't have a free will where you're the one ultimately deciding while at the same time you can't break the causal chain, it's nonsensical. Yes you can decide, but it's not free aslong as you cannot break the causal chain, and ultimately decide for yourself.

A compatibilist can say we have free will and can't break the causal chain, but the free he speaks about is e.g that no one's holding a gun to his head but his will is instead constrained by classical physics and the causal chain. 

Tell me, how are you free if you're already determined to do what you're going to do something? How can you possibly change something that has been determined? If you say you can then you're implying that you can break the causal chain, but you can't.

All this boils down to is you not willing to accept the application of certain reasonable definitions of freedom other than that one definition that you have in mind.

In any case, your will nor your freedom is free. In any case they're determined. In any case they are governed by the laws of physics, in this case classical physics, they're fully causal and therefore every single millimeter you move, every single knee jerk reaction you get, every single step you take is determined and you cannot do anything to do otherwise. How are you free if you're constrained by the laws of physics itself?

Oh, you're free because no one is holding a gun to your head. No. Every action you do is determined, there is no free if it's determined. How is it possible to be free if it's already determined?

(July 31, 2016 at 3:27 pm)RozKek Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 3:14 pm)Irrational Wrote: All this boils down to is you not willing to accept the application of certain reasonable definitions of freedom other than that one definition that you have in mind.

In any case, your will nor your freedom is free. In any case they're determined. In any case they are governed by the laws of physics, in this case classical physics, they're fully causal and therefore every single millimeter you move, every single knee jerk reaction you get, every single step you take is determined and you cannot do anything to do otherwise. How are you free if you're constrained by the laws of physics itself?

Oh, you're free because no one is holding a gun to your head. No. Every action you do is determined, there is no free if it's determined. How is it possible to be free if it's already determined?

Because if you want to go with a reasonable definition of "free", free and determined are not opposites of each other.