Atheism feels shunned...

[Purple Rabbit]

I don't think he does because he's not the one claiming free will exists. I agree with him.

Well EvF, does free will exist? And if so, how would you define it?

Um ... I already know he doesn't specifically claim it exists but more to the point it is YOU (as the presumed claimant) who does therefore just as we all do with the theists it is YOU that must define it and justify it's supposed existence. Ev doesn't have to justify a damned thing.

Kyu

Um.....that's very fine for you....but I don't know if he does or not. So it seems kind of a good idea to me to ask EvF himself what he thinks. And since your claim is that you have no free will but live some deterministic life with no place for identity why should I pay attention to your gratuite opinion at all? Exactly, no reason.

And for your information, although I see no way that you can make any decision on the information I give you without free will, I am not asking EvF to justify anything. I want to know what his definition of free will is, if he has any? Plain and simple. If you cannot see the difference between asking a definition and asking for justification, that's indicating some trouble in your deterministic world in which you cannot play any active role. So why worry about it? It's all determined already. So have a nice talk with the Googlebot that's roaming the premises here and good day to you.

[Edwardo Piet]

Then define free thought for me.

Does he have to? After all he doesn't claim it exists, others do! I agree with Ev 100% on this one ... the existence of free will (freedom of thought) is an assumption because there is no objective way of assessing whether what we thing is freedom of thought actually exists.

Kyu

Indeed he has to. He claims that it is has validity to us:

Whatever we call 'free' and 'choices' is what is free and choices 'to us'.

Eh? I said it's defined by whoever defines it. Whatever it is 'to us'. I believe our 'choices' are entirely mechanical and there's no evidence to the contrary whatsoever (that I know of). I'm not defining free thought, I'm saying whatever you call it and however it's defined...that doesn't stop our choices from being entirely mechanical...like I said: I know of no evidence to contradict that. Calling something free doesn't make it free - as in it's not evidence that everything isn't just mechanical (whether in a deterministic universe or indeterministic universe...unpredictability doesn't give credence to the ability to make non-mechanical choices).

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

Then define free thought for me.

Does he have to? After all he doesn't claim it exists, others do! I agree with Ev 100% on this one ... the existence of free will (freedom of thought) is an assumption because there is no objective way of assessing whether what we thing is freedom of thought actually exists.

Kyu

Indeed he has to. He claims that it is has validity to us:

Whatever we call 'free' and 'choices' is what is free and choices 'to us'.

Eh? I said it's defined by whoever defines it. Whatever it is 'to us'. I believe our 'choices' are entirely mechanical and there's no evidence to the contrary whatsoever (that I know of). I'm not defining free thought, I'm saying whatever you call it and however it's defined...that doesn't stop our choices from being entirely mechanical...like I said: I know of no evidence to contradict that. Calling something free doesn't make it free - as in it's not evidence that everything isn't just mechanical (whether in a deterministic universe or indeterministic universe...unpredictability doesn't give credence to the ability to make non-mechanical choices).

EvF

I am not yet totally sure what that means but I'll try to rephrase it in my words to try to get a grip on it.
I hope you wanna comment on my interpretation. I should underline that it is my INTERPRETATION, I do not claim to use phrasing that accurately describes your thought. I state this explicitly since Kyu is so keen on making a huge who-claimed-what argument out of this.

hmmm....I do not hear you saying that free will does not exist, only that it has relative existence..."it's defined by whoever defines it".

So what do you mean with that relative existence? Do you mean that it only exists relative to the human mind which exists in absolute sense (in the Descartian way of cogito ergo sum), to emphasize dependence on the mind, i.e. free will can only exist in the (human) mind. In that case it boils down to some kind of existence to me and I would not conclude that free will is non existent. Like numbers are dependent on the mind but are real to me. Or maybe your emphasis is on the fact that what we perceive as free choice is not rooted in the workings of the world, that we cannot claim to controll the material world directly with our relative free will. Then the existence of free will would depend on your definition of it. Does your definition of free will require that some form of direct control over events in the material world takes place. This in fact was my reason to ask for your definition. Please help me out here.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm saying that all our actions are entirely mechanical. So in that sense I don't believe in free will. And I argue that anyone who believes in 'free will' in the sense of believing that they can override this - is believing in an illusion: Free will in that sense is merely an illusion to those who believe it.

I would say that I could accept definitions of 'free will' such as how Dennet defines it...as "Avoidability" or "Evitability": But the important thing is there that our choices are still entirely mechanical by that definition; and by that definition it's entirely compatible with determinism!! (That's important to note...it's predetermined yet it's free will?) So I wouldn't call that free will...but the point is whether you call it free will or not - that doesn't stop our choices being mechanical. We need evidence to the contrary there.

And if all our choices and actions are entirely mechanical, whether the universe is deterministic or INdeterministic - I myself wouldn't say we have 'free will' this being the case.

So no, I'd say I don't believe in free will if I have to say. Any definitions I would accept (like Dennet's) I think are pointless and a bit confusing/misleading because so many people wouldn't call that 'free' (often unless they don't really get how that definition doesn't actually encompass what they believe it does!!). I think any other definition of 'free will' isn't really worthy, it's a nice thought - but I'd just call that freedom, responsibility - and the fact we have preferences and a 'will'....I'd say we have a 'Will' (of course: Our conscious intentions, ambitions, our drive, etc, etc) and I'd say we have freedom on the outside and our mental capabilities inside too: But I'd argue that we have freedom, we have will - but our will itself[ - isn't free. We can't override the mechanics of the universe which we are part of. All our choices are entirely mechanical.

I don't define 'free will'; I let others define it. I'm yet to see a definition I would feel satisfied with wanting to call 'Free Will'...and any 'Free Will' that is supposed to override what I believe is this entirely mechanical universe that we live in - I just don't believe exists: Because I know of no evidence for such a 'Free will'. Any other definition I have felt is unworthy though - and at times misleading. I can accept Dennet's definition of 'avoidability'; 'evitability', etc - but I wouldn't want to call that 'Free Will' as I said.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

I'm saying that all our actions are entirely mechanical. So in that sense I don't believe in free will.

Now say the word "daffodil" after me. Done? Now that was a mechanical action, but is that all there is to it? You uttered a word with certain meaning and conveyed it to the world (the world thanks you for it). Is the meaning of the word mechanical? I don't think so. Do you?

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes. What evidence is there to believe it's anything other than mechanical?

I ask: Ultimately anyway; what isn't mechanical?

I am a highly complex biological robot. My actions are mechanical...they just don't seem mechanical.

I do stuff...I say stuff - I think stuff...But any of this 'stuff' that I think, say or do - what evidence is there that i control this? When; I'd have to control the 'me' that does this 'stuff' to have any control that isn't mechanical?...And how can I control this 'me', this 'self'....if it is this 'me', this 'self' that does the controlling?...If this 'self'....is me...so how can I can control it...that would just be it controlling itself, wouldn't it?: And where's the evidence that that's possible!?

... My 'self' controls itself without any explanation whatsoever when there's no evidence for this so as far as I'm concerned my 'self' is just mechanical??....my self controls itself?(Without any explanation as to how) - All that sounds circular to me! Considering I don't know of any evidence for this...? My 'self' controls my body (the rest of me - that's separate to the brain), and my 'self' I assume is controlled by other mechanical processes (like everything else is...yeah? Whether deterministic or indeterminisitc? As far as I know anyway...if not - please enlighten me!!)...how exactly is there anything more to it than that? Where's the evidence that there is??

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

I'm more-or-less in Ev's camp in that I don't accept the presumption of free will ... however I wouldn't go as far as saying everything is mechanical (I have no free will) I just assume I don't until otherwise demonstrated.

Kyu

[Pippy]

Hey,

I think it is one of those examples of duality. The system in question is so complex that literally both sides of the argument are both untrue and true. We are very complex robots, yes. All of our actions have to exist in the framework of possible actions. I don't think that is a strike against free will though. It does not disprove free will for me to will myself to fly, and then fail to do so...

But on the other side, there has to be free will. If you don't call my ability to write whatever I please, or stop writing and wander around, free will, then what would it be? There has to be free will for such things as accountability, responsibility and disagreement. At least, I think so.

It might not make any sense to take a dualistic approach to something so vast, but it works for me. There are compelling, even valid arguments for both the existence and lack of free will. Therefore, it seems to me, there is room for both. The we sometimes have free will, of that we have some free will...

Just adding my log to the fire. I love philosophy.

Thanks,
-Pip

[Kyuuketsuki]

It does not disprove free will for me to will myself to fly, and then fail to do so...

The problem is simple ... just like claims to the existence of deity, the claim that free will exists, is based on little more than wishful thinking. Although it's generally accepted that we have free will it's an acceptance based on what we would like to believe, we'd all like to believe we have freedom of choice, freedom to make our own decisions, freedom to do this that and everything else ... yet there's not actually any evidence and what we appear to have as free will could just be a mirage.

Do amoeba have free will? Bacteria? Plants? Insects? Reptiles? non-mammals? Mammals? Apes? Humans? If some do and some don't where does the dividing line sit and why? The problem, it seems to me, is that we are freely using what we use to think freely to evaluate whether we think freely ... er ... yeah! In the end we have no choice but to assume we have free will and proceed from there.

Personally I think I have free will or if I don't it's such a good imitation I don't greatly care and I'll happily just enjoy the ride but if you think free will genuinely exists then a little evidence would be nice!

Kyu

[Pippy]

Do amoeba have free will? Bacteria? Plants? Insects? Reptiles? non-mammals? Mammals? Apes? Humans? If some do and some don't where does the dividing line sit and why?

No I don't think so. I think free will is tied to sentience, and so we would be the only creature we know of with free will. In fact, god itself may not have such a luxury.

Personally I think I have free will

a little evidence would be nice!

I said that there is information pointing to both conclusions. You claim that there is either free will, or a good illusion of such. You go first. Or don't, but then don't expect me too.
-Pip