Is free will real?

[The Grand Nudger]

Hard determinism is the conclusion that our descriptions of "free will" do not grok with the observations we've made about the world around us or ourselves, that free will, in short and in fact, is incompatible with those observations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism

Even if we lived in a magical world...these would still be our observations. Understand? What raw data are you sitting on that the world ought to see Chad?

What leads you to believe that this language can't be extended to any other mechanical process (or that the extension of specific language somehow alters a process itself)? Photosynthesis is "about" the sun. What "directs" those experiences....and in what way is this different from the example I just gave? You're just assuming that they're different as proof that they're different. An attempted fiat - shenanigans. Regardless, whatever difference there may be between either that won't move us an inch closer to having your description of what experience -is- (or what free will is) being any more accurate.

To put it another way. Do you actually object to Pickups statement, that whatever an experience -is- it certainly isn't what we seem to be describing? That "I see red" isn't -to our minds- the clicking and clacking of equipment - even though that is -demonstrably- what "seeing red" is?

[Mudhammam]

People experience free will when they can conceive and consciously deliberate over potential courses of action and select among those choices apart from internal or external compulsion. One must presuppose physical causal closure to conclude that all choices are compelled.

They "experience free will" begs the question. They experience rather a cascade of mostly random thoughts and feelings that fluctuate and overpower one another, connected however to past events and present conditions in the person's life. One must ignore all evidence of reality and resort to special pleading to argue the dumb notion that -some- people, when they reach a certain age, become connected to an invisible secret portal (perhaps the gateway rests in the brain but I'll leave that up to you Reinnasance philosophers to speculate) where a person's soul sits, as a little god or uncaused cause, directing operations.

Your color example assumes that the subjective of experience of color is identical to and reducible to some set of physical operations

Well... yeah, duh. Sorry but citing the law of identity can't rescue your illogic here.

[tantric]

Have you considered that there might be something wrong with your question? Just because you can poise a yes/no question doesn't force there to exist an answer that makes sense - after all, do you enjoy beating your wife? The Q contain 'free', 'will' and 'real' - all nebulous concepts.

And I know it's gonna get on your nerves, but the answer is the sound of one hand clapping. Your Q is a koan, a combination of words that seems like a meaningful question, but is actually just a logic trap that your mind can go over and over and find no end to. If you keep at it, however, you will find the answer. Your brain will glitch and you'll have an instant of perspective, an understanding of how a determinate universe can exist non-dual to free will. All the words will mean what they really mean and fit together, the problem in your question will be gone, though you still won't have any kind of answer you can write down on a philosophy test. That's what Zen is for - the non-verbal answer.

[bennyboy]

Hard determinism is the conclusion that our descriptions of "free will" do not grok with the observations we've made about the world around us or ourselves, that free will, in short and in fact, is incompatible with those observations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism

What about compatilbilism?

[Mudhammam]

Hard determinism is the conclusion that our descriptions of "free will" do not grok with the observations we've made about the world around us or ourselves, that free will, in short and in fact, is incompatible with those observations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism

What about compatilbilism?

If you can explain a coherent version of compatibalism, I'm all ears. I've read Dennett, and despite his compelling sophistry, I don't think it withstands critical examination. It's determinism in everything but name. Just because causes become more complex doesn't negate their causation.

[bennyboy]

What about compatilbilism?

If you can explain a coherent version of compatibalism, I'm all ears. I've read Dennett, and despite his compelling sophistry, I don't think it withstands critical examination. It's determinism in everything but name. Just because causes become more complex doesn't negate their causation.

lol you won't find me ever supporting Dennett's ideas either.

[Neo-Scholastic]

They "experience free will" begs the question. They experience rather a cascade of mostly random thoughts and feelings that fluctuate and overpower one another, connected however to past events and present conditions in the person's life.

Thoughts? Feelings? Where did all the neural gears and pistons go!?!

One must ignore all evidence of reality and resort to special pleading to argue the dumb notion ...

A reductionist theory of consciousness must ignore half of reality, the part that includes subjective experience and significance.

Your color example assumes that the subjective of experience of color is identical to and reducible to some set of physical operations

Well... yeah, duh. Sorry but citing the law of identity can't rescue your illogic here.

Your hand-waving doesn't work. Thoughts can be true or false. The same cannot be said for brain states. Mental properties are not identical to physical properties, at least not in the way that Mark Twain is identical to Samuel Clemens.

[Mudhammam]

Thoughts? Feelings? Where did all the neural gears and pistons go!?!

A reductionist theory of consciousness must ignore half of reality, the part that includes subjective experience and significance.

Your hand-waving doesn't work. Thoughts can be true or false. The same cannot be said for brain states. Mental properties are not identical to physical properties, at least not in the way that Mark Twain is identical to Samuel Clemens.

What's the difference besides one description being subjective, as in felt directly, and conveyed in practical terms, and the other, being non-evaluative, expressed in intricate detail at the level of molecular processes? If I say placing "ingredients X" into "body Y" causes "processes ABC" that results in "stimulant Z," which then sends "signal D" to a specific function of the brain, and the result is,in practical terms, "Chad feels joy and nostalgia, thinking 'THIS IS MY FAVORITE FLAVOR OF CAKE!'" the subjective experience is effectively quantified in objective terms. Reductionism isn't worse off because it can't capture THE FEELING of tasty baked goods anymore than physics suffers because, in accurately describing, say, zero gravity, you've never actually been in such an environment yourself. I don't see the problem. Yes, subjective means that you must be a subject that feels, and reductionism is an objective description that can't emulate the direct, first-person experience on exactly---identically--direct, first-person terms. So? Terms aren't the same as feeling either. Something is already lost in conception itself. Have I missed something?

[Whateverist]

Have you considered that there might be something wrong with your question? Just because you can poise a yes/no question doesn't force there to exist an answer that makes sense - after all, do you enjoy beating your wife? The Q contain 'free', 'will' and 'real' - all nebulous concepts.

And I know it's gonna get on your nerves, but the answer is the sound of one hand clapping. Your Q is a koan, a combination of words that seems like a meaningful question, but is actually just a logic trap that your mind can go over and over and find no end to. If you keep at it, however, you will find the answer. Your brain will glitch and you'll have an instant of perspective, an understanding of how a determinate universe can exist non-dual to free will. All the words will mean what they really mean and fit together, the problem in your question will be gone, though you still won't have any kind of answer you can write down on a philosophy test. That's what Zen is for - the non-verbal answer.

Something like this is true. All three of those words one could use to describe themselves. At one time I would have said that what I am at the core of my being is "willing". I am what I will is one sense of it. I am willing in the sense of being compliant is the other sense of it. There is a dance going on between that which is already realized and that which is becoming realized. Being "willing" means accepting the give and take of the dance, knowing that that which I will shall be that which I become. Freedom is good in this context so long as it means free to dance with all the others.

But the freedom of will that is more often talked about is the freedom of will to act without regard to other influences. But freedom to dance apart from all others is hardly a positive, no more than the isolation ward would be considered a step up.

What is real is being a part of something larger like a community or a cosmos. One could call it freedom to dance in an arbitrary manner, one that is indifferent to the beat of the music which most others hear and move to, but I wouldn't. There is much more freedom in going with it, in willingly dancing with it all as you find it. Freedom to embrace and respond sounds better to me than the freedom to withhold and maintain.

That which one wills becomes ones reality. One has the choice to embrace energy or reject it, we don't actually have the choice to create energy. If you're willing there is freedom in embracing energy that far surpasses the sense of freedom one may feel in controlling energy.

[robvalue]

I think compatabilism is a fancy way of not answering the question, I don't see the point in it. But I agree, "free will" is such a slippery term that it's almost useless. Best to stick to the science.