If free will was not real

[The Grand Nudger]

Lets come at it from another angle, again for you both.

Would it be fair to say that neither of you object to casually determistic this and thats as "free will".  As in, if the process were causally deterministic..you're both still comfortable calling it free-in-context?

Would it be fair to say that the local ownership of reasons, parameters, or decision-making criteria and condition are sufficient to consider it your "free" wills, regardless of where or what those things are..and just as above, whether or not they are products - themselves- of causally deterministic this and thats?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm noticing that my points are being twisted so you could attack a strawmen instead of addressing my words exactly as written. I'm done playing your game.

You'll have to be more specific, otherwise I won't know what to rephrase or explain.

And perhaps you can be pretty coercive, but you also seem to think too highly of yourself.

Do I have a choice? Is it free?

[bennyboy]

Here's the thing for me. Rhythm, you are seeing the physical world as black-or-white. In other words, you expect mutually exclusive views to be one-right, one-wrong. However, there's much about the Universe that doesn't play by this rule. It seems to me that at least some things in the Universe resolve down to truth values based on the perspective you take, or on the method you use to make the resolution.

Is a photon a particle or a wave? Yes. No. Not really. Kind of. Both. Neither.

If you look at it from the perspective of brain chemistry, I think you could have a reasonable expectation of determinism, implying that fee will cannot be anything more than a label for a very complex but completely deterministic process. That, clearly, is your position.

But the problem is that this is not the only perspective. An introspective view allows a subjective agent to experience for itself its own nature. I can know what its like for me to experience "redness," and no matter how much you talk about this or that brain function, part, or process, you cannot contradict what I know through experience-- because human agency is defined subjectively, not objectively.

The physical monist view, we must remember, isn't reality. It's an idea about the nature of reality. When you try to squeeze the reality of human experience into a box the shape of your world view, you might as well insist that light "can only" be a particle. It makes perfect sense in logical terms, but insisting that apparent paradox is necessarily false is to demand that the Universe not be as it really is.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's the thing for me.  Rhythm, you are seeing the physical world as black-or-white.  In other words, you expect mutually exclusive views to be one-right, one-wrong.  However, there's much about the Universe that doesn't play by this rule.  It seems to me that at least some things in the Universe resolve down to truth values based on the perspective you take, or on the method you use to make the resolution.

LOL, no.  I;m asking people in what sense something is free, when they claim it to be free, and whether or not they can demonstrate it -to- be free either by the "vanilla" definition -or- their own description of it's freedom.

Is a photon a particle or a wave?  Yes.  No.  Not really.  Kind of.  Both.  Neither.

Relevance?  Is free will a photon.  Are we asking whether it;s a wave or a particle?  No, no, and no.  

If you look at it from the perspective of brain chemistry, I think you could have a reasonable expectation of determinism, implying that fee will cannot be anything more than a label for a very complex but completely deterministic process.  That, clearly, is your position.

My position is that if something does have free will, it's not the brain.  Maybe something out there can make free will happen, that something just doesn't appear to be our brains....not that my position matters, since we're discussing those other positions we've been exploring.

But the problem is that this is not the only perspective.  An introspective view allows a subjective agent to experience for itself its own nature.  I can know what its like for me to experience "redness," and no matter how much you talk about this or that brain function, part, or process, you cannot contradict what I know through experience-- because human agency is defined subjectively, not objectively.

I've been exploring the perspectives of others.  I can, indeed, contradict your experience.  We do it all the time when we tell people that there really -aren't- pink elephants dancing over their heads..that they are insane, and need help.  You;re seeking liscense to consider your descriptions of your experience accurate carte blanche. That has to be the most intellectually and scientificlly stifling thing I've ever heard.

The physical monist view, we must remember, isn't reality.  It's an idea about the nature of reality.  When you try to squeeze the reality of human experience into a box the shape of your world view, you might as well insist that light "can only" be a particle.  It makes perfect sense in logical terms, but insisting that apparent paradox is necessarily false is to demand that the Universe not be as it really is.

I only seek that whatever ideas we have be intelligible.  Free-but-not-free will is not intelligible. Ironically, it appears to be a compulsion to defend personally important folklore. Ultimately, whether or not a person changes their ideas of free will (or reality) in response to my comments is a non-issue for me. I'd rather help them find a better way to describe whatever it is, a better argument for whatever they maintain. This, here, is not the way to establish one's position. No amount of anothers position being one of many will speak to the truth of any given position, no amount of anothers position being wrong or insufficient will makes ones own more accurate, and no amount of prattling on about photons will inform us with regards to free will.

If -I- can poke holes in it, here on AF......it's probably not a groundbreakingly accurate description of reality, eh? If it's important to someone (and we've seen that it is, the importance of this or that has been stressed time and time again)... a slick presentation is a thing of value....wouldn't it be nice to be able to explain free will (regardless of whether or not we have it..or it even exists in actuality) in a way that doesn't fold under itself as soon as it's uttered?

[bennyboy]

Relevance?  Is free will a photon.  Are we asking whether it;s a wave or a particle?  No, no, and no.  

The relevance is that reality cannot always be reduced down to an unambiguous expression of our very limited rational explanations for things. Mind is perhaps the most mysterious thing of all, and making black-and-white assertions about its nature based on a philosophical position that has no explanation for mind is probably not a very good practice.

I've been exploring the perspectives of others.  I can, indeed, contradict your experience.  We do it all the time when we tell people that there really -aren't- pink elephants dancing over their heads..that they are insane, and need help.  You;re seeking liscense to consider your descriptions of your experience accurate carte blanche.  That has to be the most intellectually and scientificlly stifling thing I've ever heard.

If most people experienced pink elephants, then I'd be inclined to think they are real. It seems to me that EVEN AMONG those of you arguing against free will, you act as though you consider it real. And among 99% of humanity, I'm sure it doesn't even occur to them that there's no such thing as free will.

I only seek that whatever ideas we have be intelligible.  Free-but-not-free will is not intelligible.  Ironically, it appears to be a compulsion to defend personally important folklore.  Ultimately, whether or not a person changes their ideas of free will (or reality) in response to my comments is a non-issue for me.  I'd rather help them find a better way to describe whatever it is, a better argument for whatever they maintain.  This, here, is not the way to establish one's position.  No amount of anothers position being one of many will speak to the truth of any given position, no amount of anothers position being wrong or insufficient will makes ones own more accurate, and no amount of prattling on about photons will inform us with regards to free will.

And no description of a physically monist position will ever explain what things are like to experience, or explain why we experience what things are like.

If -I- can poke holes in it, here on AF......it's probably not a groundbreakingly accurate description of reality, eh?  If it's important to someone (and we've seen that it is, the importance of this or that has been stressed time and time again)... a slick presentation is a thing of value....wouldn't it be nice to be able to explain free will (regardless of whether or not we have it..or it even exists in actuality) in a way that doesn't fold under itself as soon as it's uttered?

Free will, quite simply, is a label for the capacity to freely choose. And you can philosophize all you want, but I'm still enjoying my Snickers bar, smug in the self-knowledge that I chose it freely. My experience of freedom trumps your insistence that it is incompatible with your world view.

This is this thread:
Me: Look. I have an ice cream. I chose it freely.
You: No you didn't. A deterministic chain of events starting at the Big Bang, to the creation of the Earth, to the evolution of species, to the development of your culture, to you walking in 7-11, inevitably resulted in you choosing it.

My version is infinitely more descriptive of what it's like to be a human agent than yours is. Sometimes, you have to accept that a useful idea has transcended the limits of its usefulness. And in this case, your view of the Universe has definitely hit that point.

[The Grand Nudger]

The relevance is that reality cannot always be reduced down to an unambiguous expression of our very limited rational explanations for things.  Mind is perhaps the most mysterious thing of all, and making black-and-white assertions about its nature based on a philosophical position that has no explanation for mind is probably not a very good practice.

Unfortunately, that's the business of logical discussion regardless of whether or not it;s the actual status of reality.  We could wonder about that until the cows come home....but I'm content to work with what we've got.  It's not as though I have a choice.  

If most people experienced pink elephants, then I'd be inclined to think they are real.  It seems to me that EVEN AMONG those of you arguing against free will, you act as though you consider it real.  And among 99% of humanity, I'm sure it doesn't even occur to them that there's no such thing as free will.

Because no ones arguing against our -experience- of will........................simply the accuracy of the description.  Most people, most people?  You;d be inclined to believe on the basis of an appeal to an ad pop?  I wouldn't.  Most people see the lady being sawed in half too......

And no description of a physically monist position will ever explain what things are like to experience, or explain why we experience what things are like.

-again, it doesn't matter.  The failures, real or percieved...of anothers position are -irrelevent- as regards an assessment of your own.  If you say you have free will, but cannot show it or coherently explain or describe it..it doesn't -matter- that I think you don't have it, and it doesn't matter whether or not I'm a physical monist, or that the physical monist position is unsatisfying to you.  The problem isn't what I think (or what you think)..it's what you can't do.  

Free will, quite simply, is a label for the capacity to freely choose.

Free will is free will...thanks for clearing that up.  I guess I'll just pull down the tent and go home, my work here is done.  No...no, wait, I won't.  -Can- you freely choose?  

And you can philosophize all you want, but I'm still enjoying my Snickers bar, smug in the self-knowledge that I chose it freely.  My experience of freedom trumps your insistence that it is incompatible with your world view.

You're building an altar to irrationality. I know you have an experience. I have one too. I bet they;re awfully familiar. Is your description of that experience -accurate- in regard to it's referent?  There's nothing incompatible with free will -in my worldview-......jesus christ, I allow for the possibility. I'd just like to see someone who has some of the shit show me the shit or explain the shit....and stop babbling about -other peoples shit-.

[bennyboy]

-again, it doesn't matter.  The failures, real or percieved...of anothers position are -irrelevent- as regards an assessment of your own.  If you say you have free will, but cannot show it or coherently explain or describe it..it doesn't -matter- that I think you don't have it, and it doesn't matter whether or not I'm a physical monist, or that the physical monist position is unsatisfying to you.  The problem isn't what I think (or what you think)..it's what you can't do.  

You think "all we've got" is the physical monist world view. I think we've got a lot more than that. We have direct experience, for example. Now, while I'm leery of source attributions ("I get the willies so God."), there are some experiences which are self-evident: the existence of the self, for example, or the experience of what redness is like.

The question is whether free will is a source attribution, in which case the experience of it cannot render a useful truth statement, or whether "free will" is a label for something which is self-evident. Your position is that however I feel about it, we know enough about the physical reality of the universe to know that the sense of freedom cannot represent truth, at least in an ultimate sense.

But no idea or experience represents the kind of truth you are talking about, in actuality. We have experiences, inferences, symbols about them, and systems of thought about them. But the human agency necessarily precedes whatever we think we "know." In arguing against free will, you are essentially arguing against the concept of self. Because if there's no free will, then all human pursuit for knowledge represents the Universe exploring itself. But then. . . feel that lurking Deism there?

Yes, that's it. Your argument against the free will of human agency is an implicit argument for the Universe as Deity. Good job.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think all we've got, in a logical discussion, are the black and white rules of inference, amigo.  

I'm not arguing against the self, and it would't matter if I were...because that's an appeal to consequences. Nor am I arguing for the universe as a diety...and on that count, your comments have entered loon territory and aren't worth the time.

Is this it, is this all? Is it any wonder I don't believe in free will, you're not even trying. Too busy bitching about whatever it is you think my position must be. Too busy shifting the burden of proof. I've responded to -others- arguments for their propositions, I haven't offered an argument against free will, and there's no need for me to do so. Perhaps you should read the thread?

Your position is that however I feel about it, we know enough about the physical reality of the universe to know that the sense of freedom cannot represent truth, at least in an ultimate sense.

No, lol, my position, in this thread...has been that the various descriptions offered of the free will claimed to exist and be possessed by the claimants are irrational and woefully lacking in any demonstration thereof. I'm really not sure what I'm supposed to do with them...nor can I work out why you feel compelled to respond in the manner that you have. Was that freely willed...presented with the free choice of manufacturing a better description or argument....and all of that shit up above...did you freely choose one over the other, or were you limited, constrained, coerced or under duress such that you took the approach that you did as if you were simple bio-automata?

[Edwardo Piet]

Most people seem to get confused over free will because it certainly seems that we have it (we are actively thinking about decisions before making them).

The problem happens when you start to really question that "active thinking". Sure, you can say you went to an ice cream store and thought about whether to have chocolate or vanilla, and decided on chocolate, but... did you actually decide? There's no actual way to tell; we can't rewind time and observe you choosing vanilla instead. From an external perspective, all you did was go into the store and get chocolate.

It gets even more confusing when you think about the nature of free will vs the physical nature of the brain. The brain is a bunch of neurons firing in reaction to various stimuli. What if your brain is the one actually making the decision (predetermined by the stimuli) and your "thought process" in which you actively come to a decision is just an illusion, a byproduct of the brain.

Occams razor suggests that the illusion of free will is more likely than actual free will.

I agree with those premises but reach a different conclusion because I'm using imo a better definition of free as related to will. Even if I don't actually consciously make the decisions but are simply made aware of them after the fact, and even though external factors certainly play a role in the decision making process in an indirect manner, if it's my brain formulating these decisions, then it's still me (arbitrarily) making these decisions, though I may not be consciously making them. It's not like I end up consciously disapproving of these decisions. So I still do what I desire to do.

IOW: You see it a different way because you're a compatabilist.

[Silver]

My free will arguments are always intelligible, yet they go ignored for the atheist agenda. Yes, I went there. Sometimes, the supposed atheist ignores reason because it counter acts preconceived notions of something that is held "sacred" within the atheist community.