Another Free-will poll, please bear with me!

[robvalue]

You are totally and completely free to feel like you're choosing to do the net result of a bunch of quantum randomness in your constituent parts.

Isn't that the American Dream? I'm not in America though. I still have some pretty weird dreams. Compatible cannibalism.

[Cato]

So...as I thought though, Libertarian free-will has few votes, and no one who voted for that posted in the thread.  I'd like to know though, if the people are honest enough to step forward, if both of those votes so far were made by theists or deists or who?

I'm one and almost didn't select for reasons Whateverist mentioned; I grow tired of having to explain that libertarian free will does not mean anything goes. For a time I considered compatibilism, but have concluded that it's still too deterministic for my tastes. One problem with determinism is that one must ignore where will does play a roll in our actions. People are too quick to point to a very limited experiment showing how our subconscious minds work and then paint the entire spectrum of our conscious existence with its conclusion.

Another aspect of determinism that I don't accept is the assertion that events can be predicted if everything were known at the most basic level; thereby, ignoring the concept of emergence.

Accepting that all our reasons for all our actions are nothing more than post hoc rationalizations seems a bit absurd.

[robvalue]

The thing I find hardest with free will, however you define it, is what the default position is. I can see arguments from both sides as to what it should be. It's such a confusing subject, where my experiences (my only experiences) appear to contradict my scientific beliefs. So do I start with what appears to be the case, or what makes more scientific sense?

Normally the default position is fairly obvious, but I feel it's up for debate somewhat in this instance. I lean towards determinism/QR being default, but I'm not convinced yet.

[emjay]

I'm a hard determinist, hence my new profile pic. I live as if there's free will, cos there's not much choice in the matter - pardon the pun, but deep down I know everything past, present, and future is determined by the clockwork universe.

[Aroura]

I'm a hard determinist, hence my new profile pic. I live as if there's free will, cos there's not much choice in the matter - pardon the pun, but deep down I know everything past, present, and future is determined by the clockwork universe.

Just wanted to say, love your clockwork universe profile pic.  It's beautiful

[emjay]

I'm a hard determinist, hence my new profile pic. I live as if there's free will, cos there's not much choice in the matter - pardon the pun, but deep down I know everything past, present, and future is determined by the clockwork universe.

Just wanted to say, love your clockwork universe profile pic.  It's beautiful

Thanks Aroura, I was quite taken with it too If you do a Google image search you get lots of different visualisations of the clockwork universe but that was the simplest and most beautiful to me I changed to it cos it helps me to be reminded of it - it gives me comfort in bad times. I think it would make a great tattoo as well, then it would be with me all the time

[bennyboy]

I think in the end a view of free will boils down to this: is a supervenient quality greater than the sum of its parts?

I'd argue that when the supervenient quality is relational (as in mind), the answer is necessarily yes. For every two parts you bring together, you now have 2 kinds of information: that of the original parts, and that of their relation. Where does this information exist? Not in the parts-- it's not actually created by them, or of them, but exists in a superset. Now, take out a part, and the superset collapses, so in that sense it is dependent on its parts-- but they are only placeholders for that relational information.

Mind, then, transcends neurons even though it is fully dependent on them. The same goes for body: physical systems aren't about a collection of QM particles but about their interrelation. I'd argue that to the degree we see a single personal agent as A thing, rather than a collection of things, free will can be seen as the interrelationship of mental processes which themselves need not be free, but which is itself still free.

If we stare at words long enough, we can convince ourselves that there's no free will. But then we step away from the computer and actually live life, and free will is as real as every other part of what it's like to be a living human being.

[The Grand Nudger]

and free will is as real as every other part of what it's like to be a living human being.

That's a rather spotty credential to have...lol....don't you think?  

[bennyboy]

and free will is as real as every other part of what it's like to be a living human being.

That's a rather spotty credential to have...lol....don't you think?  

Yes.  That's why I don't usually like to make a blanket assertion: "free will is real" / "free will is illusory"

It's little use to say that a rock isn't a solid object once you know it consists of 99.99999999% empty space.  That .000000001% stuff is still solid enough to cave skulls. And for similar reasons, it's little use to say that free will, or even mind, is an illusion.  I wake up in the morning, the lights turn on, and I begin to experience-- that's mind, and it's real enough.  I walk to the kitchen, open the fridge, and ponder what I will eat for breakfast-- that's free will, and it's real enough.

I guess the short version is that philosophical "truths" are interesting enough, but they don't seem to affect the human experience much. Only a fool would pull the blankets over his head and say, "Fuck it, I don't have free will anyway."

[The Grand Nudger]

I walk to the kitchen, open the fridge, and ponder what I will eat for breakfast-- that's free will, and it's real enough.

I think that the implications brought by illusion are not that it is not real - in the sense you seem to be using it, any more than a magician pulling a rabbit from a hat is "not real" - and yet exists.  Mechanics of language. I don't think that anyone claiming that it is an illusion is claiming that it is nothing, -non-existent-...that you and I both don't have that experience. It seems to me, rather, that they are suggesting that free will may be as real as a magician pulling a rabbit from a hat...however you choose to take that..lol.