If free will was not real

[The Grand Nudger]

I've defined my terms, though it's probably a page ago, now.  You are treating the "you" and the "controller" as different entities, and demanding that the you be able to control the controller, or drop the idea of free will.  

I'm not telling you you have to drop free will, only telling you that referencing a controller won't demonstrate it.  I don't need to doubt that you can control your arm, or that you and the controller of that arm are part of the same package.  I simply wonder about whatever led to that happening.  Is it the unmoved mover of mind, is it just one of any number of random things you could have been doing and have since ret-conned, is it a response to an input based algorithm?  These are the questions..and saying "I have defined myself as having control" doesn't answer them.

[quip]

Do you?  I don't know about you but I sure wasn't granted the free volition to refuse my existence, that is, the capacity to freely refuse the very existential will you assert as being free. 

Can a forced adaption of will be considered free?

I know all the words in your post, but I don't have a clear picture of what you're trying to express with them.  Could you clarify a little?

Dupe

[quip]

Do you?  I don't know about you but I sure wasn't granted the free volition to refuse my existence, that is, the capacity to freely refuse the very existential will you assert as being free. 

Can a forced adaption of will be considered free?

I know all the words in your post, but I don't have a clear picture of what you're trying to express with them.  Could you clarify a little?

Just answer two simple questions:

1.  Were or are you ever free to deny your capacity to act in a freewill manner?

2. Do you consider forced-freewill oxymoronic?

[Faith No More]

Those who disbelieved in free will would not post here.

Next time you feel the need to insult anyone's intelligence, as you constantly do, I want you to remember this thread and remind yourself that you're just as capable of saying extremely stupid shit as the next guy.

[bennyboy]

I know all the words in your post, but I don't have a clear picture of what you're trying to express with them.  Could you clarify a little?

Just answer two simple questions:

1.  Were or are you ever free to deny your capacity to act in a freewill manner?

2. Do you consider forced-freewill oxymoronic?

I do not really know what you mean by being "free to deny your capacity to act in a freewill manner." I can see that you think these words form a coherent idea, and maybe they really do-- but not one that is more than word salad to me.

[bennyboy]

I've defined my terms, though it's probably a page ago, now.  You are treating the "you" and the "controller" as different entities, and demanding that the you be able to control the controller, or drop the idea of free will.  

I'm not telling you you have to drop free will, only telling you that referencing a controller won't demonstrate it.  I don't need to doubt that you can control your arm, or that you and the controller of that arm are part of the same package.  I simply wonder about whatever led to that happening.  Is it the unmoved mover of mind, is it just one of any number of random things you could have been doing and have since ret-conned, is it a response to an input based algorithm?  These are the questions..and saying "I have defined myself as having control" doesn't answer them.

I don't think I was the one to introduce the idea of a controller, or that I referenced one until you mentioned it.  I don't know what "the unmoved mover of mind" means, or the term "ret-conned."  I do know what "algorithm" means, though not in this context.

It may be that I'm just tired right now, but I'm sincerely having trouble understanding what you first, and now quip, are trying to communicate to me.

[quip]

Just answer two simple questions:

1.  Were or are you ever free to deny your capacity to act in a freewill manner?

2. Do you consider forced-freewill oxymoronic?

I do not really know what you mean by being "free to deny your capacity to act in a freewill manner."  I can see that you think these words form a coherent idea, and maybe they really do-- but not one that is more than word salad to me.

It's rhetorical. Word salad is the point. 

Freewill is simply a semantic game perpetuated by the religious in an (incoherent) effort to transcend human action from the mundane causes and effects of the universe.  Human actions are therefore "special".     It's woo.

[The Grand Nudger]

In my case, that your experience of being in control of something...and even your actually -being- in control of something, would not demonstrate any free will.  I'll give you some examples of why I think that, as I elaborate on those terms you mentioned.

1. The unmoved mover of mind would be that "x" which, not being forced by any causal factors, effects an action or change.  Classical free will.  This has so far eluded us.

2. Retconning is the act of retroactively revising the story of some event.  As in we later remember that we thought/felt/did x, regardless of whether or not we actually did at the time of reference.  A story about having free will, in context, rather than actually having it.  We find this with some regularity.

3. An algorithm, again in context, being an architecture of nuerons that do x in response to y, ultimately resulting in higher order behaviors.  This is the only theory of mind (and I assume that will, free or otherwise would be a part of our minds) for which we have any evidence, however tenuous a person may think that evidence is.  It may ultimately be wrong, but it's possible.

So, stepping back out to a larger picture, defining ourselves a certain way...even the truth of that definition (for example..that you and the controller are the same) doesn't really speak to the issue of free will.  If the control we have is 3, the act of 2 can give us the experience of 1...even in the absence of 1.  This isn't to say that we don't have 1, classical free will, only that the experience of having it is not demonstrative of the truth of the contents of that experience.  There's at least one sensible way...well evidenced, that the contents can be manufactured in absentia.

Now, we could propose that the y which nuerons do x in response to -is- 1, but we'd simply be assuming our conclusion, not demonstrating it. This too, then, is uninformative. Or that there is no 3, and no risk of 1 being 2.....which, in addition to assuming our conclusion denies a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

[bennyboy]

I do not really know what you mean by being "free to deny your capacity to act in a freewill manner."  I can see that you think these words form a coherent idea, and maybe they really do-- but not one that is more than word salad to me.

It's rhetorical. Word salad is the point. 

Freewill is simply a semantic game perpetuated by the religious in an (incoherent) effort to transcend human action from the mundane causes and effects of the universe.  Human actions are therefore "special".     It's woo.

You are projecting a lot of ideas and attitudes that don't have.  I can't argue against what you want me to be thinking.

[bennyboy]

In my case, that your experience of being in control of something...and even your actually -being- in control of something, would not demonstrate any free will.  I'll give you some examples of why I think that, as I elaborate on those terms you mentioned.

1. The unmoved mover of mind would be that "x" which, not being forced by any causal factors, effects an action or change.  Classical free will.  This has so far eluded us.

Yeah, sounds a lot like magic, or like God.

2. Retconning is the act of retroactively revising the story of some event.  As in we later remember that we thought/felt/did x, regardless of whether or not we actually did at the time of reference.  A story about having free will, in context, rather than actually having it.  We find this with some regularity.

Well, to me, free will is a word for a category of experience, like the experience of picking my favorite ice cream. This accords well with the way we use other subjective words: nobody says, "It's not REALLY love, it's just hormones," because the experience of the hormones and other sensations are called love.

3. An algorithm, again in context, being an architecture of nuerons that do x in response to y, ultimately resulting in higher order behaviors.  This is the only theory of mind (and I assume that will, free or otherwise would be a part of our minds) for which we have any evidence, however tenuous a person may think that evidence is.  It may ultimately be wrong, but it's possible.

Free will really has under it issues about the nature of agency: are we a collection of QM particles, or are we more than that? The answer is yes and yes. So at the top level, the question is does something happen with a collection of brain functions that is MORE than just the sum of the brain functions? I'd say yes, since individual neurons probably aren't conscious, and since a whole brain is.

So, stepping back out to a larger picture, defining ourselves a certain way...even the truth of that definition (for example..that you and the controller are the same) doesn't really speak to the issue of free will.  If the control we have is 3, the act of 2 can give us the experience of 1...even in the absence of 1.  This isn't to say that we don't have 1, classical free will, only that the experience of having it is not demonstrative of the truth of the contents of that experience.  There's at least one sensible way...well evidenced, that the contents can be manufactured in absentia.

I'm also perplexed by the "magic" view of free will. I see free will as the natural expression of the intent of a personal agent. For sure, that includes feelings, hormones, instincts, the brain, etc. Maybe it includes that mysterious "factor X." But in my view, the latter isn't really necessary. All that's necessary is that I be able to form intent, and to manifest that intent as behavior.