Free will/evil/punishment

[The Grand Nudger]

We're sure that our "freely willing" shit isn't one of our animal instincts?  If being free of emotion completely were the way to exercizing will....how effective a force/cause would will be in human beings?

@Nestor, you asserted that the person in the scenario acted freely, you did not demonstrate it.  Compliance with the will doesn't tell us that our decisions are freely made -regardless- of whether or not will is automated..or some-something is at the wheel.   That we make considerations of options available is unimpressive.  So does a comparator, and nothing need be at that wheel either. I don't know, personally, whether we have one of these free will things - but neither of those two things would imply or demonstrate that whatever will we have is free, or that a course of action is freely taken.

[henryp]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they are certain there is no kind of free will. Has anyone actually said that? Even if so, not many people I should think.

Saying people act "as if they have free will" is a badly formed phrase I believe. It assumes that they are wrong. If they are right, and there is no free will, then they are simply acting as they must act, so to say they are doing something "as if" makes no sense. They are making no real choices. It's not "as if" because there is no free will and no choices.

If they are wrong, and they do have free will, then yes they have free will and are using it, whether they realize it or not. Even the choice to do nothing is a choice. If there is free will, how could you possibly act "as if there is no free will"? What would that entail? If it involves any kind of choice, then that's a contradiction. It would just be choosing to do what they imagine no free will would be like... but if they think they are making that choice, then they've failed! They made a choice, using their free will. See, it doesn't make sense. In other words, everyone must by definition act "as if" they have free will, because that's literally all they can do. So it's more accurate to say they do have free will and have no choice but to use it. They may simply be unaware they are using it, and have come to the wrong conclusion about whether free will exists. That's the crucial part: we don't know, both explanations produce an identical result, so it seems. We can't rewind time and look for possible different choices.

What I'm saying is, if the objection is that people act "as if there is free will", what is the alternative?

I think it's very important to separate the two scenarios and examine them independently. If you talk like both at once could be true, the language makes no sense. And they can't both be true. If you take someone's actions, you don't know which is true. So either they are doing what they must do, or they are acting under free will and cannot "choose" to do otherwise.

I think the confusion comes by the mental trap of thinking in terms of there being free will, while examining whether or not there is free will.

The issue isn't over choosing, it's over what role the individual plays in choosing.  With no free will, it's just a matter of genetics/input.  With free will, i'ts a matter of genetics/input/mystery force.  

Either way, our brains are still plodding through our mental process, it's just a matter of whether or not we have the mystery force that represents our contribution to the conclusion.  

So when we say "as if there is free will", that's our brain operating under the idea there is mystery force.  Of course, there may not be.  But our brain doesn't know that, so it is just acting on bad info.  But it could definitely do this without 'free will.'  Because 'choosing' isn't what free will is.  It's having input into the choice.

[robvalue]

Sure, free will means just about anything to anyone, that's the problem. It needs pinning down before you can say very much about it. I very much doubt there is an agreed definition.

My point was you cannot choose to act "as if there are no choices" because that's a contradiction in terms. But again, you have to define what choice means first; choice can sometimes not mean an actual choice according to some lingo.

Fuck it, I'm going to erase everyone's free will.

[Mudhammam]

It seems to me that one might view the animal instincts as obstacles to the exercise of free will, and that Buddha and the stoics had it right.

What say you?  Are the baser or animal instincts the purest expression of will, or its most immediate impediments?  Should one be free of emotion completely in order to most fully exercise free will?

Well, at this point I would probably include animal instincts as part of one's will; in keeping with the divorce initiated by Socrates, the Stoics wanted to elevate the mind and reason to the heavens while leaving the body behind on the earth, but I'm more in Lucretius' camp, that the two aren't really separable. It may be true that our reasons conflict with our passions, but so often do our reasons seem to war against our reasons (the angel vs. the devil), and our instincts are left in turmoil as like a pendulum they swing this way then that.

[Mudhammam]

@Nestor, you asserted that the person in the scenario acted freely, you did not demonstrate it.  Compliance with the will doesn't tell us that our decisions are freely made -regardless- of whether or not will is automated..or some-something is at the wheel.   That we make considerations of options available is unimpressive.  So does a comparator, and nothing need be at that wheel either. I don't know, personally, whether we have one of these free will things - but neither of those two things would imply or demonstrate that whatever will we have is free, or that a course of action is freely taken.

The choice is in the freedom or luxury to delineate and weigh outcomes before they occur, and then to act without hindrance in accordance with the preference that agrees with your character or will.

[The Grand Nudger]

The choice is in the choice.  The choice is in the freedom.  The freedom is in the choice. You are still asserting what's being asked. Again, non-thinking, non free-willing things can accomplish what you are describing. Do we do it some different way, that requires this -x-? Is acting without hindrance (whatever that means, however that could be accomplished) in accordance with your will (whatever that is) -free-, in some way other than as a matter of convention or manner of speech - and if so..can it actually be done- by you, or I? This is whats being asked. This is why repetition of terms which imply free will do not demonstrate that we actually -have- free will.

[Mudhammam]

The choice is in the choice.  The choice is in the freedom.  The freedom is in the choice. You are still asserting what's being asked. Again, non-thinking, non free-willing things can accomplish what you are describing. Do we do it some different way, that requires this -x-? Is acting without hindrance (whatever that means, however that could be accomplished) in accordance with your will (whatever that is) -free-, in some way other than as a matter of convention or manner of speech - and if so..can it actually be done- by you, or I? This is whats being asked. This is why repetition of terms which imply free will do not demonstrate that we actually -have- free will.

Huh? Non-thinking things can accomplish thoughtful deliberation? What is it you're trying to say? I would not describe a purely non-thinking, or irrational, process to be one that involves choice.

I'm continually unimpressed with your feigned ignorance ("whatever that means") of your opponent's usage of terms that---not only are commonly understood, as evidenced by a simple perusal of a dictionary---but have repeatedly been defined and cited by example, here and elsewhere, in the abundance of material written on the subject.

Anyway, a "deteminist" like Jerry Coyne defines free will as a decision which "reflects anything more than the laws of physics that impinge on your mind, as reflected through your genetic endowment and the environments you've experienced," whereas what I mean by free will is the process of surveying and selecting actions through rationalization, taking an account of your various instincts, passions, memories, predictions, etc., along with the qualitative experience of acquiescing the most compelling factor at that given moment, not involving restrictions by other internal or external influences which could be said to infringe upon the desires or reasons consistent with one's character.

A person whose nature it is to act compulsively experiences, and actually possesses, a lesser degree of freedom than another who ponders potential consequences that may result from different actions, just as a person who studies a variety of worldviews and their practical outcomes is more free to make an informed determination about his or her own beliefs than a person who is exposed to a single ideology.

[The Grand Nudger]

Huh? Non-thinking things can accomplish thoughtful deliberation? What is it you're trying to say? I would not describe a purely non-thinking, or irrational, process to be one that involves choice. 

-by the description you offered previously, of thoughtful deliberation..the item you've now decided to prevaricate upon?  Yeah.  You described a situation in which there was no way to determine the difference.   Impulses, urges, then consideration of options, of effects, of intended outcomes.  The impulses and urges sound decidedly human to me, but the consideration leveraged is not a uniquely human trait.  We let machines do most of that for us.   I expect there to be a difference.  You seem to expect there to be a difference as well.  

I'm continually unimpressed with your feigned ignorance ("whatever that means") of your opponent's usage of terms that---not only are commonly understood, as evidenced by a simple perusal of a dictionary---but have repeatedly been defined and cited by example, here and elsewhere, in the abundance of material written on the subject. 

How would I know what your will was, or what you took your will to be.  How?  I've seen many an idea of will tossed around here.  Would you prefer that I -imagined your position for you and then argued against it-..........jackass.

Anyway, a "deteminist" like Jerry Coyne defines free will as a decision which "reflects anything more than the laws of physics that impinge on your mind, as reflected through your genetic endowment and the environments you've experienced," whereas what I mean by free will is the process of surveying and selecting actions through rationalization, taking an account of your various instincts, passions, memories, predictions, etc., along with the qualitative experience of acquiescing the most compelling factor at that given moment, not involving restrictions by other internal or external influences which could be said to infringe upon the desires or reasons consistent with one's character. 

There we go.  See.....elaboration was required and extremely helpful, because your idea of free will and mine are identical........except that I don't think it's free at all...and even after saying that... I'm not sure you and I actually disagree on the issue.  You've put a subset of internal things in one box, and called the rest "other".  The question asked is whether or not all of those things belong in the same box.  Your categories are helpful in trying to understand your framework...but they do not advance an answer to that question.  I certainly don't see how I could rescue it from bondage -by applying the label of "other" to a category I have invented in order to accommodate it.....

It seems to me that both of us feel that a certain amount of things can be crossed off the list. What remains, what we do when we make decisions, whatever that is..is "free will" to both of us. Yeah?

A person whose nature it is to act compulsively experiences, and actually possesses, a lesser degree of freedom than another who ponders potential consequences that may result from different actions, just as a person who studies a variety of worldviews and their practical outcomes is more free to make an informed determination about his or her own beliefs than a person who is exposed to a single ideology.

Some people's Free-Willers™ work better than others...you think?  I don't know about that, myself....don't even know how we could determine that.......how -have- you determined that.....? I'm not really sure that your idea of an informed decision is any different this go around than last go around, and it continues to assert the item in question..rather than demonstrate it. Start from the bottom. Bring me to where you are?

IP Address: Logged

[bennyboy]

It seems to me that one might view the animal instincts as obstacles to the exercise of free will, and that Buddha and the stoics had it right.

What say you?  Are the baser or animal instincts the purest expression of will, or its most immediate impediments?  Should one be free of emotion completely in order to most fully exercise free will?

Well, at this point I would probably include animal instincts as part of one's will; in keeping with the divorce initiated by Socrates, the Stoics wanted to elevate the mind and reason to the heavens while leaving the body behind on the earth, but I'm more in Lucretius' camp, that the two aren't really separable. It may be true that our reasons conflict with our passions, but so often do our reasons seem to war against our reasons (the angel vs. the devil), and our instincts are left in turmoil as like a pendulum they swing this way then that.

Interesting.  It seems to me that your view of "will" is not different than my definition of "self," in the sense that the will is the behavioral expression of the self.

I see my short-range desires, when they come into conflict with my long-range desires or goals, as an impediment to the free expression of the self rather than a part of it.  But I see this as an arbitrary perspective-- I wouldn't want to go about trying to logically support it.

[henryp]

Sure, free will means just about anything to anyone, that's the problem. It needs pinning down before you can say very much about it. I very much doubt there is an agreed definition.

My point was you cannot choose to act "as if there are no choices" because that's a contradiction in terms. But again, you have to define what choice means first; choice can sometimes not mean an actual choice according to some lingo.

Fuck it, I'm going to erase everyone's free will.

I would say a computer program can make choices, but I would not say it has free will, as the choices are just a product of programming and input.  The computer itself has no say in the matter. 

In the same way a human makes choices, but it is a product of genetics and input.  So the smarty pants scientists who say we have no free will are saying that there is nothing that the individual is contributing.  It is just a product of inherited genetics and surroundings.

And the longer the program runs, and the more input that is taken in, the things it chooses can change.  So my programming and input led me to think more about free will, and because of such, the output is a skepticism towards its existence.  The skepticism towards its existence causing me to behave differently.  

We see the same thing with chess computers, as they change their moves based on how long they have to analyze the board, the moves of the opponents, and occasionally, the self-teaching aspect that changes the choices it makes the more games it plays.