Free will

[dyresand]

* Alasdair Ham repeats his arguments

And the great forum turtle has spoken.

[Shadow_Man]

Rhythm,
Wow. I leave for a few days and the whole world changes. You guys are fast. I feel like I'm necro-posting within an active thread.

The conditions are irrelevant. In an absurdist universe where there is no cause or condition..a true claim to foreknowledge is still true. In a fatalist universe where the only cause or condition is that outcomes are fatalistic, a true claim to foreknowledge is still true. In a closed loop of causal determinism, a true claim to foreknowledge is still true. This is a demand of the claim regardless of the circumstances which led to it, even if there -are- no circumstances which led to it...which is why discussing those circumstances is an irrelevancy with regards to the claims being considered for compatibility.

I don't think you realize the import of your statements. If the conditions producing an outcome are irrelevant to true foreknowledge of the outcome, then any conditions are possible, and no conditions can be ruled out. Thus, free will as the condition that produces the outcome cannot be ruled out, but you have been claiming throughout this entire thread that free will must necessarily be ruled out.

Regards,
Shadow_Man

[Edwardo Piet]

Shadow Man,

Do you believe in free will and if so is it compatible with determinism and hence meaningless or incompatible and hence logically incoherent? Those are the two options.

Regards,

Alasdair Ham

[Shadow_Man]

Alasdair Ham,

Fuckin' hell, Shadow Man's like a robot isn't he?

[Insert name here]

Blablablabla

Regards,

Shadow Man

Rinse and repeat.

If, to you, addressing the person I am talking to, presenting a point-by-point response to their post, and giving them my regards when I am finished talking makes me a robot, then I am guilty as charged.

Shadow Man is so silly. Silly is good.

But at least I'm a silly robot. Robots should never take themselves too seriously.

Regards,
Shadow_Man

[Shadow_Man]

Alasdair Ham,

Shadow Man,

Do you believe in free will and if so is it compatible with determinism and hence meaningless or incompatible and hence logically incoherent? Those are the two options.

We were talking about that before, but that discussion kind of fell off the map. I am happy to take it up again. By all means justify that you are presenting logical options, and that they are the only two possibilities.

Here is your original post -

If determinism is true, libertarian free will cannot exist.
If indeterminism is true, libertarian free will cannot exist.

In both cases compatabilist free will can exist, but it is simply "will" being redefined as "free will", it's a silly definition that dodges the genuine question.

And here is approximately where we were -

"Will"=Willpower. The dictionary can define that one, same for "free". "Free will" is a willpower that is free. A compatabilist believes that free will is compatible with determinism, but the only kind of will compatible with determinism is the will with the kind of freedom that no one doubts humans have -- just normal human willpower. The only "free" added to that beyond that could be libertarian free will, which is impossible as explained above. Without that it's just ordinary willpower. So compatabilists may call it "free will" but they're just talking about ordinary willpower and calling it "free". That is why I personally think it's silly.

When I speak of free will, I am speaking of our ability to make up our own minds and make our own choices within our ability to enact them. It includes the concept that we could have done otherwise. In your definitions, does that correspond to Libertarian Free Will, what you are calling Normal Human Willpower, or something else entirely?

Do you define Normal Human Willpower to allow that we could have done otherwise? If so, is there some other characteristic of Libertarian Free Will that sets it apart from Normal Human Willpower?

I'm tired and drunk but I don't want to forget to respond to you, I hope to give you a better response at anotehr time.

For now I will say that:

Indeterminism implies literally that we "could have done otherwise" but as I said above it also implies that we cannot determine ourselves and therefore can't will ourselves. "could have done otherwise" is more than just the literal meaning, it means "could have done otherwise using ones own will, could have willed it the way we chose it to be willed", the kind of "could have done otherwise" in indeterminism is the same kind of "could have done otherwise" that a bunch of dice or a roulette real has, that's not free will.

To move forward from there, we must first understand what determinism and indeterminism are, and to what do they apply. Then we can add the layer of understanding their implications. You appear to be jumping the gun by including your understanding of their implications within the definitions themselves. If you cannot define them without resorting to what you think they imply, then don't bother trying to define them; quote an existing definition.

Remember that the implications are what this whole thread is contesting, so you must justify that you have logiced your way to correct ones. It is insufficient to just assert them.

So -
What is determinism?
Here is a possible definition -
When a set of influences impact upon a sentient entity, that entity must necessarily react in one and only one way. It cannot do otherwise.

What is indeterminism?
It is "not-determinism," so here is a possible definition -
When a set of influences impact upon a sentient entity, that entity is free to react in any way it chooses, within its own ability to enact those choices. It can readily do otherwise.

You say that "no one doubts humans have" Normal Human Willpower.
Does Normal Human Willpower allow that we can do otherwise?

It occurs to me that what I previously said to IATIA also seems to apply to you.

The observed nature of our free will is that it is not at all random. Quite to the contrary, it is thoughtful and purposeful. That was my point. You seem to be saying that there are only two things in operation in the universe - specific determinism or randomness. I am saying that there is at least a third thing - human cognition and the free will it engenders. The observed nature of our free will is that it is neither specifically determined nor random.

The important point being that our free will is observed every bit as much as are causation and randomness.

Regards,
Shadow_Man

[IATIA]

The important point being that our free will is observed every bit as much as are causation and randomness.

Regards,
Shadow_Man

No.

[Silver]

Of course, free will is observed.

I study people daily, watching them, and it is quite apparent to me that they are subconsciously making decisions throughout the day. Even something as simple as deciding between a sandwich or a soup. They have the free will to choose between the soup and the sandwich, for their decision is not predetermined.

Predeterminism is a religious concept constructed in a form of a deity that cannot and does not exist.

[IATIA]

Of course, free will is observed.

No it is not.  You are observing "free will" in action with the preconception that it does exist.

[Silver]

You are observing "free will" in action with the preconception that it does exist.

Poppycock.

[IATIA]

You are observing "free will" in action with the preconception that it does exist.

Poppycock.

Show me then.  How do you test for free will?

The following two links shed light on how our "free will" may work.  Random, not free.

brain1
brain2