Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(July 29, 2016 at 4:21 am)quip Wrote: Then don't introduce intention as a supporting argument for free-will. Senselessness.
Intention isn't a supporting argument for free will. Will is the expression of intent. Free will is the expression of intent unfettered by obstacles or compulsions from the world outside the acting agent.
The same problem persists. Freedom of the will is contingent upon external circumstances (the absence or existence thereof). You're simply offering up anecdotal examples of the former; not an adequate argument for freewill writ large.
(July 29, 2016 at 5:41 am)bennyboy Wrote: Intention isn't a supporting argument for free will. Will is the expression of intent. Free will is the expression of intent unfettered by obstacles or compulsions from the world outside the acting agent.
The same problem persists. Freedom of the will is contingent upon external circumstances (the absence or existence thereof). You're simply offering up anecdotal examples of the former; not an adequate argument for freewill writ large.
I'm not sure why interactions with one's environment are equivalent to compulsion. I've defined will as the capacity to manifest intent in the world. Obviously, in order for one to FORM intent, one has to have been affected by the world at some point.
But that's what personhood is: it's the sum total of all the internal influences, including feelings, memories, etc. Obviously, if I had never eaten ice cream, I would be unlikely to seek it in a store. But that doesn't matter-- at the moment of selection, nothing is compelling me except my own nature.
July 29, 2016 at 4:07 pm (This post was last modified: July 29, 2016 at 4:37 pm by quip.)
(July 29, 2016 at 3:37 pm)bennyboy Wrote:
(July 29, 2016 at 1:35 pm)quip Wrote: The same problem persists. Freedom of the will is contingent upon external circumstances (the absence or existence thereof). You're simply offering up anecdotal examples of the former; not an adequate argument for freewill writ large.
I'm not sure why interactions with one's environment are equivalent to compulsion. I've defined will as the capacity to manifest intent in the world. Obviously, in order for one to FORM intent, one has to have been affected by the world at some point.
But that's what personhood is: it's the sum total of all the internal influences, including feelings, memories, etc. Obviously, if I had never eaten ice cream, I would be unlikely to seek it in a store. But that doesn't matter-- at the moment of selection, nothing is compelling me except my own nature.
Any action you propose to take remains contingent upon a near infinite set of circumstances. The very capacity to exist, to facilitate a conscious will itself was brought about by action of your biological parents (beyond your control/influence). Likewise all willed action hitherto; conditions anterior to your decision to enjoy ice cream exist far beyond your past experiences of it. This can hardly be considered "free" ....perhaps only in the limited, proximate sense.
(July 29, 2016 at 4:07 pm)quip Wrote: Any action you propose to take remains contingent upon a near infinite set of circumstances. The very capacity to exist, to facilitate a conscious will itself was brought about by action of your biological parents (beyond your control/influence). Likewise all willed action hitherto; conditions anterior to your decision to enjoy ice cream exist far beyond your past experiences of it. This can hardly be considered "free" ....perhaps only in the limited, proximate sense.
As I said, free will is the expression of the personhood-- including memories and feelings. DNA, life history and hormones are all included in personhood, and do not need to be free in order to establish free will. It's obvious that anything with a nature will act according to that nature, and unless one is eternally unchanging, that nature will itself be a product of some kind of causal chain.
Even in Christianity, we couldn't have a free will separated from causality-- God caused us to exist, and we were given a certain nature, and we act on it.
So there's no kind of free will other than the "limited, proximate" kind we're talking about-- that there is no impediment or compulsion which prevents us from manifesting the intent of the person in the world around us.
July 29, 2016 at 9:51 pm (This post was last modified: July 29, 2016 at 9:57 pm by quip.)
(July 29, 2016 at 8:07 pm)bennyboy Wrote:
(July 29, 2016 at 4:07 pm)quip Wrote: Any action you propose to take remains contingent upon a near infinite set of circumstances. The very capacity to exist, to facilitate a conscious will itself was brought about by action of your biological parents (beyond your control/influence). Likewise all willed action hitherto; conditions anterior to your decision to enjoy ice cream exist far beyond your past experiences of it. This can hardly be considered "free" ....perhaps only in the limited, proximate sense.
So there's no kind of free will other than the "limited, proximate" kind we're talking about-- that there is no impediment or compulsion which prevents us from manifesting the intent of the person in the world around us.
You describe simply a bounded will, 'free' need not apply, it's superfluous.
You seem to assume that you decide what your intention is. You don't. Your intention originates in your brain (or you) however your brain/you still follow the causal chain therefore your intentions aren't free either. Your intentions are also fully determined, and if indeterminism is true and affects your intention then it's partly random and there's no free in random except free from determinism but not free for choice. So even by your definition "free intention" doesn't exist either in other words your intention isn't free.
Yeah, you're totally correct. Everything is the same thing in a sense, water is water not because it isn't made of the same thing fire is made of (in this context I'm talking about particles, that's the important bit) but because the particles that make water are organized in a unique way forming water, differentiating it from fire, we're just describing them with words. So, yes you can say everything is just an idea. I am a human being, the earth is a planet, we're called different words because we have different properties (the particles we consist of are organized in unique ways, giving us different properties) it's just our way of communicating. But fundamentally we're the same thing. I have as much free will as the earth has, we're both just a set of particles acting/moving according to the universe.
Talking about consciousness. If consciousness didn't exist a human would still be able to make decisions, act etc. It would just not be aware of it. Why? Because every single action is just the result of particles moving e.g your neural net interacting making your arm go here and there, you get the point. We're just conscious observers. I personally believe that consciousness is just a by product. Complexity and intelligence doesn't necessarily require consciousness afaik.
Anyway, sand does exist. When I say sand ultimately you can say I'm refering to particles organized in a certain way forming what we describe sand as. In the end they're all just particles organized in different ways forming different properties that we refer to with different words.
And it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, whether it's an interesting view of reality, if it's true it's true. And when you evaluate and something seems good to your nature even the process of that evaluation isn't ultimately your decision, it was either partly random or bound to happen exactly the way it happened.
Well then, if you agree that you cannot break the causal chain, problem solved. All your intentions, actions, desires and such are a part of the causal chain and you cannot do anything to do otherwise but you can imagine different things to do. However even those imaginations i.e what you'll imagine would also be a part of that causal chain, in other words not under your control ultimately speaking.
I gather, from your post, and a number of posts from others, that what is being expounded on here, is that choices are entirely a mechanistic process brought about by physical forces within the brain. That given X in you will get Y out (with a very complicated equation in between). Wouldn't this also apply to any logic or rational you are using to determine this? If what you are saying is true, then it would seem that you also have to free will to say whether yours or benny's logic is right or wrong. Or that you can say it, but have no way to determine if one is more correct than the other. Would you agree?
No, we're both just evaluating, thinking critically and logically based upon our knowledge (even that isn't ultimately our decision) it doesn't require free will, why would it? I don't know if I actually answered your question, I didn't really get what you're saying. I don't need free will to use logic and be rational, it's just happening in my brain and we can then evaluate or determine which one is correct by, well, using logic, critical thinking etc although even that is ultimately beyond our control.
(July 28, 2016 at 3:50 pm)RozKek Wrote: You seem to assume that you decide what your intention is. You don't. Your intention originates in your brain (or you) however your brain/you still follow the causal chain therefore your intentions aren't free either. Your intentions are also fully determined, and if indeterminism is true and affects your intention then it's partly random and there's no free in random except free from determinism but not free for choice. So even by your definition "free intention" doesn't exist either in other words your intention isn't free.
You are still talking about things I've never talked about. I never talked about "free intention," or about indeterminism. That's what you guys want this debate to be about, but it's not the assertion I'm making.
I'm saying that will is the capacity of a thinking agent to express intent as behavior, i.e. to bring about some change in the world outside the self. Free will is the capacity to form intent based on one's personhood, and to express it without either compulsion or obstacle from outside.
Quote:And it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, whether it's an interesting view of reality, if it's true it's true. And when you evaluate and something seems good to your nature even the process of that evaluation isn't ultimately your decision, it was either partly random or bound to happen exactly the way it happened.
Well then, if you agree that you cannot break the causal chain, problem solved. All your intentions, actions, desires and such are a part of the causal chain and you cannot do anything to do otherwise but you can imagine different things to do. However even those imaginations i.e what you'll imagine would also be a part of that causal chain, in other words not under your control ultimately speaking.
There's this "you" again. Everything involved with my forming intent, including all the brain function, is part of me. So I do not accept that I have to have some magical non-deterministic yet self-expressed capacity to change my brain function in order to say I have free will. Free will is the expression of the self, and cannot therefore be applied to anything about the self, including the process of forming intent. If you do that, you're demanding that the self and the expression of the self are identical, which is not a very sensible statement.
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.
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.
July 30, 2016 at 9:09 pm (This post was last modified: July 30, 2016 at 9:12 pm by bennyboy.)
(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.
July 30, 2016 at 9:42 pm (This post was last modified: July 30, 2016 at 9:43 pm by Jehanne.)
(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.
Can you comprehend living in a world without language? Imagine that you could vocalize yet you could not speak, that you could hear but yet could not listen, that you could see yet you could not read or sign. Can you imagine living your life in such a world? I can't. But, yet, this is a world in which many individuals, normal today, will find themselves living in come tomorrow due to a condition called Broca's aphasia. Would you be able to express yourself if a stroke or traumatic injury occurred to your brain? Probably not, at least not to the degree that you can now. Point is that your mental state would be altered due to a change in your brain's state, which means that if "free will" exists than it must be an emergent property of your brain.
This list is nearly endless here; I could go on but I'll stop.
(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.
Can you comprehend living in a world without language? Imagine that you could vocalize yet you could not speak, that you could hear but yet could not listen, that you could see yet you could not read or sign. Can you imagine living your life in such a world? I can't. But, yet, this is a world in which many individuals, normal today, will find themselves living in come tomorrow due to a condition called Broca's aphasia. Would you be able to express yourself if a stroke or traumatic injury occurred to your brain? Probably not, at least not to the degree that you can now. Point is that your mental state would be altered due to a change in your brain's state, which means that if "free will" exists than it must be an emergent property of your brain.
This list is nearly endless here; I could go on but I'll stop.
Sure, no human brain, no human free will. The point is one is free to make choices, as in without coercion from others or without complete control from outside factors. The will itself, even if determined by genes and environment, may play a role in the causal chain as well.
And sometimes, though we have a will, the will is not always comfortably free. You might be forced to make a certain choice by someone else, so in such case, the will cannot reasonably be deemed free.
