Free will

[Shadow_Man]

Alasdair Ham,

If determinism is true, libertarian free will cannot exist.
If indeterminism is true, libertarian free will cannot exist.

This is much too cryptic. Please explain your terms, explain your logic, then demonstrate or justify it.

In both cases compatabilist free will can exist, but it is simply "will" being redefined as "free will", it's a silly definition that dodges the genuine question.

There is too much sub-text here. Please provide your definitions for me, explain why one is a redefinition of the other, explain what is silly, what is the genuine question, and what is being dodged.

Many philosophers go that route because it's an easy answer, a substitution for a genuine question -- and I'm not going to listen to an appeal to authority "But most philosophers are compatabilists" ...

I think you have me confused with dyresand. He is the one making irrelevant appeals to authority, not me. I do not know, nor do I care, what philosophers think. I think for myself and speak for myself.

... I don't give a fuck.

I will participate in civil discussion only. I do not converse with people in real life who cannot get through 4 sentences without resorting to profanity, and I will not do so here on the internet, either. It is inevitable that conversing with me will frustrate you. If you are already so spun up that you cannot keep a civil tongue in your head, then don't bother responding to me. If you are able to control your temper and moderate your language, then by all means, let's talk.

Regards,
Shadow_Man

[Edwardo Piet]

This is much too cryptic. Please explain your terms, explain your logic, then demonstrate or justify it.

Sure

If determinism is true, libertarian free will cannot exist because libertarian free will implies by definition the ability to be able to have done otherwise. It would imply that someone could have done differently. Determinism by definition implies that no one and nothing can be different than one determined path. So determinism and libertarian free will are logically incompatible.

If indeterminism is true, libertarian free will cannot exist because indeterminsm means nothing and no one can be determined, which implies that no one can freely will or in other words determine their own behavior, which implies that there is no libertarian free will.

Therefore libertarian free will does not exist.

There is too much sub-text here. Please provide your definitions for me, explain why one is a redefinition of the other, explain what is silly, what is the genuine question, and what is being dodged.

"Will"=Willpower. The dictionary can define that one, same for "free". "Free will" is a willpower that is free. A compatabilist believes that free will is compatible with determinism, but the only kind of will compatible with determinism is the will with the kind of freedom that no one doubts humans have -- just normal human willpower. The only "free" added to that beyond that could be libertarian free will, which is impossible as explained above. Without that it's just ordinary willpower. So compatabilists may call it "free will" but they're just talking about ordinary willpower and calling it "free". That is why I personally think it's silly.

I think you have me confused with dyresand. He is the one making irrelevant appeals to authority, not me. I do not know, nor do I care, what philosophers think. I think for myself and speak for myself.

I am not aware of what Dyresand is or isn't doing. I'm not accusing anyone of an irrelevant appeal to authority. My post was just a general statement of my opinions on the matter, it was not aimed at anyone in particular. I know you think and speak for yourself and I'm sorry that I made you feel otherwise. That was not the intention I had in mind at all. I wasn't even talking to you specifically. I was just posting my opinions.

I will participate in civil discussion only. I do not converse with people in real life who cannot get through 4 sentences without resorting to profanity, and I will not do so here on the internet, either.

That's fine

Personally, I like to swear. It's fun.

It is inevitable that conversing with me will frustrate you. If you are already so spun up that you cannot keep a civil tongue in your head, then don't bother responding to me. If you are able to control your temper and moderate your language, then by all means, let's talk.

I'm not angry I'm having fun I'm sorry that profanity bothers you but I think it's [insert a profane intensifier beginning with 'F' here] awesome.

I'm more than happy to not swear when talking to you, at least during this conversation -- but don't expect me to remember anywhere outside this specific conversation. Swearing is a habit for me, and I enjoy it. It's good for your health too -- studies have shown that profanity can reduce both physical and psychological pain.

[Edwardo Piet]

The illusion of free will, is an illusion. There is no illusion of free will.

If you think what you observe gives the illusion of free will -- then how would life seem to you if there was no illusion?

[ApeNotKillApe]

Free will, meaningless term. We're only the result of everything that has been, and the past can't be changed. Thoughts can't be unthought. The present is an illusion, consciousness is at the front of the computational system, witness to what's already happened, totally reactionary.

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree with all of that except for "the present is an illusion" I think our own present consciousness is the only thing that we can know for sure, it's the only thing that can't be an illusion.

But I don't think that's what you meant. I think you meant that what we see in our consciousness has already happened beforehand in our subconscious -- there have been scientific tests that say that we make a decision subconsciously sometimes as much as 7 seconds before the thoughts that we believe we make the decision with become conscious. I think you are aware of that research and I think that's what you meant.

I agree with everything else, ANKA.

[Shadow_Man]

IATIA,

Obviously you have misread.

Thank you for being so gracious. Honestly. I appreciate your civility.

If we have free will, no one, not even your god, can know what will we do.

I accept that you do not believe in foreknowledge. We are exploring the ramifications if God does exist and does have foreknowledge. So for the sake of this thread, God can know what we will do.

If the future is known, then it must exist and that makes us the past. If we are the past, then we have already done everything and made every choice that we can. This 'now' us is only aware of now and our 'past' us is only aware of that past. We are not the same. Effectively, there are gazillions of us, each aware of their present 'now'.

No. When you read a history book, you are reading about the past. That past is fixed. But being now fixed does not change the fact that what the people thought and did as their lives unfolded was done entirely according to their own free will as they lived. If you could go back in time and watch their lives unfold, you would see them thinking and making choices according to their own free will at the time. The fact that you know what they are going to do even before they know what they are going to do would not remove their free will in making their choices. Knowing the past does not change the nature of the past.

You cannot have it both ways. Either we have free will and god does not know every choice that we will make or god does know every choice that we will make, because we have already made the choices and there is no free will.

I do not at all concede that just because God knows the future we must therefore be living in the past. However, even if I am nothing more than my own history book, I am still a history of me thinking my own thoughts and making my own free will choices. Nothing you have said demands otherwise.

Here is what I do. I read message board posts. I copy them into Notepad. I write responses. I think about them and edit them for a few days to get them just right. Then I post them on the message board. When you are reading this it will be my thoughts from several days ago. When you read them will they have been written with no free will involved because I wrote them in the past? No.

Time is irrelevant.  

Regards,
Shadow_Man

[ApeNotKillApe]

When it comes to the free will stuff, people cling to this floaty concept of personal agency, that their conscious mind is more than the mostly reactionary figure that it is: it's a computational element, observing thought generated by countless uncontrolled factors in a causal chain. My thinking and typing about this subject is based on my personal predispositions over which I have no control, as well as the causal chain of events that has led to the present moment.

[IATIA]

I do not at all concede that just because God knows the future we must therefore be living in the past. However, even if I am nothing more than my own history book, I am still a history of me thinking my own thoughts and making my own free will choices. Nothing you have said demands otherwise.

Your god cannot see the future of free will.  If your god can monitor and calculate every single wave/particle reaction/event, then your god will know what will happen, but then we are merely puppets of determinism.  If your god can 'see' into the future, then it must have already happened and again, we are merely puppets, but this time of history.  Your perception may give you the appearance of free will, but it cannot be so as you are just playing out a history that has already happened or are simply a product of determined quantum reactions.  Free will would, by definition, force a random variable into the universe and that cannot be known until it happens or it is not free will.

Here is what I do. I read message board posts. I copy them into Notepad. I write responses. I think about them and edit them for a few days to get them just right. Then I post them on the message board. When you are reading this it will be my thoughts from several days ago. When you read them will they have been written with no free will involved because I wrote them in the past? No.

Time is irrelevant.

You do not know for a fact (nor can you) that you are nothing more than a computer simulation that was just started at this moment and everything you know was just simply programmed into your avatar.

[Shadow_Man]

IATIA,

Your god cannot see the future of free will.  If your god can monitor and calculate every single wave/particle reaction/event, then your god will know what will happen, but then we are merely puppets of determinism.

I have no idea how God knows the future. He can certainly monitor and calculate every reaction/event if He chooses to. But what are you actually saying? You seem to be implying that we are puppets of determinism whether God has foreknowledge or not. What do you actually think? Are we robots or are we free?

If your god can 'see' into the future, then it must have already happened and again, we are merely puppets, but this time of history.  Your perception may give you the appearance of free will, but it cannot be so as you are just playing out a history that has already happened ...

I have already answered this line of thinking several times. Knowledge of the past does not change the nature of the past. I am in the present, and I know what I did yesterday of my own free will. My knowledge today doesn't change the nature of the free will that I exercised yesterday, even if I recorded myself yesterday and replay it today to watch myself make my choices all over again. Remember, in your conception of time, our present is what you are currently calling our future, so my example of my own history is entirely applicable.

... or are simply a product of determined quantum reactions.  Free will would, by definition, force a random variable into the universe and that cannot be known until it happens or it is not free will.

No. Free will does not by definition force a random variable into the universe. Randomness is not freedom. Will is not random. A robot has no will at all. A robot with a random number generator in its controller is still a robot. It has not suddenly gained free will.

You do not know for a fact (nor can you) that you are nothing more than a computer simulation that was just started at this moment and everything you know was just simply programmed into your avatar.

Agreed. Nor can we know whether the simulation has been running for millenia, and we are just the current generation of avatars. But that is true with or without God's foreknowledge. It also negates every single complaint any atheist has ever registered against God. The pre-programmed mouthings of robotic simulations are meaningless.

Regards,
Shadow_Man

[Aroura]

Some people are so disturbed by the idea of the illusion of freewill that they will do anything, including redefine words, lie to themselves and others, in order to maintain the illusion

We are little robots going through the motions. Our consciousness is almost like a passenger inside us, just observing as things that are determined to happen, happen. We control none of it. Under extreme duress, sometimes the illusion is wiped away and you can actually feel yourself doing things without your own control, and you may see past the illusion. I honestly believe this is one of the "enlightenment's" that many eastern religions try to get people to experience, because it is humbling to realize you aren't really different from a rock, or a tree, or the animals you eat. That's getting a bit philosophical though.