If free will was not real

[bennyboy]

I think consciousness isn't a mystery at all and is already explained, at some level, by what we already know about the brain. It's simply a set of functions of the brain, I believe, something evolution built into us to be better able to survive. That we make much ado about nothing, is simply a side-effect.

That depends what you mean by consciousness. If you mean the ability to process and interact with the environment, yes. If you mean being aware of what things are like (i.e. qualitative experience), then no. There is currently not even a decent theory of consciousness, though Rhythm and a couple others do have theories that they like.

[Faith No More]

Oh, look, I had the free will to once again post here.

Yes, that's free will, because it means I could have kept not responding or respond once again.

Free will is essentially choice, the ability to choose between two options.

But you have no way of demonstrating that you could have chosen differently. You can't go back in time and choose a different option, so you're just assuming that you could have made a different choice and declaring free will is real based on that assumption.

The fact is that you have no proof that you could have made a different choice.

[The Grand Nudger]

We are arguing about different things, I think.  My definitions are what I'm arguing about.

"Will" I define as the capacity to manifest intent as a behavior.  I don't really "move" my arm as an agent. . . I will  it to move and it moves, even though I know very little about the actual mechanism and functions underlying that movement.

It's not the movement were discussing, when we discuss free will - that's just one possible effect that puts it into a context.  We're wondering whether the will is free, are we not?  If we're not..then why are we discussing -free will-?

"Free will" I define as the capacity of a person to form intent, and manifest it as behavior, based on one's personhood.  I'm the kinda guy who likes chocolate ice cream, I go to the store, I pick out my chocolate ice cream-- and nobody and nothing external to my personhood is either making me or preventing me.  Whether my personhood is the deterministic product of myriad physical and electrochemical interactions doesn't really matter much to my experience of making unfettered choices based on my personhood.

It may not matter to your experience (I did just describe one way that this experience might be manufactured in absentia) but it does matter with regards to the -accuracy- of that experience....because what you just described is the opposite of "unfettered", or free...even if it is a will.  

The process by which I form intent is a pure expression of my personhood.  You seem to be demanding that I be free even from that-- that I should be able to "will" myself to like strawberry, when obviously chocolate is so much better.  But that doesn't make sense, at least to me.  But there's nothing wrong with saying, in a causal sense, that you do X or Y because it's in your nature.  The freedom comes AFTER that fact-- that I can form an intent to do X, and manifest that intent in the real world, without obstruction or compulsion from outside myself.

I'm not demanding that you be free from your personhood, lol....I'm suggesting that the thing you call free will ought to be....free.  Yes, you can form an intent - is however you do that free?  If your definition of free will doesn;t demand that this be free....maybe you should use a different word for it, like will, or intent, or nature...or any of the other words you -have- used for it? The addition of the word free is unhelpful and non-descriptive.

I doubt, in any case, that you'd be able to demonstrate that you have this ability you choose to call free will, regardless of whether or not your will is free. Our lives are full of obstructions or compulsions outside of ourselves. That something happens "in your head" as it were, does not suggest or imply anything about how it came to be in your head. This arbitrary line of terminus is self serving and uninformative, it stands only to assume that what you call free is free, even when your description of it is not. If you're arguing over your definitions, rather than any actual freedom of will....then I'd say I have no reason to think that they are accurate even on their terms, and plenty of reason to think otherwise.

[RozKek]

Bennyboy, stop playing fucking word games. When I refer to you with you it's just a way of communicating, there's no deeper meaning to it. There isn't a single piece of you, when I say you I just refer to what makes you what you are.

This thread is exactly ABOUT what a person is, and when you talk about "you" in the context of free will, you'd better know what you're talking about.  "It's. . . ya know. . . like just. .  . you. . . ya know?"  isn't gonna cut it.  So with all due respect. . . if you think defining terms, or pointing out conflations or equivocations, is a waste of time, then stop using words and go fuck yourself.

That's right.  I'm talking to you.

What you don't understand is it doesn't matter at all who you define yourself as or what you define yourself as. To work in your favor let's say you are your brain and your brain makes decisions, alright? Keep in mind we never said decisions and such doesn't exist, just that it isn't ultimately free. You're definitely confusing capabilities with free will. Yes, in a sense, in your imagination you were capable of taking chocolate instead of strawberry however it was only possible for you to pick the one you picked because the decision was made in your neural net (it doesn't matter if you define yourself as your neural net) and your neural net is causal. I want to add as a reminder that if the universe is indeterministic then it's partly random and there are no choices in randomness. However, this will make the previous statement irrelevant; the brain isn't quantum, the brain is governed by classical physics and classical physics is causal/deterministic so randomness is ruled out. Therefore the only possibility is that the brain is causal, it is a part of the causal chain. It is irrelevant if the universe isn't completely causal, the only effect that has in this context is that we're causal (maybe with occassional butterfly effects from randomness that are irrelevant because they don't allow free will) beings and the universe we live in isn't determined but free will still doesn't exist.

Now the importance of what I've stated is important for my question. I've asked this several times in another thread but you and the others that believe that free will exists turned a blind eye to it, I got no response. Question is, can you break the causal chain with your brain/free will, or in other words can you break the causal chain (since you define yourself as your brain) and if so, how do you break the chain?

If you're wondering why I'm a tad bit cynical it's because we had this debate last week, you suddenly stopped responding and then you repeat the same thing all over again in another thread.

[Excited Penguin]

I think consciousness isn't a mystery at all and is already explained, at some level, by what we already know about the brain. It's simply a set of functions of the brain, I believe, something evolution built into us to be better able to survive. That we make much ado about nothing, is simply a side-effect.

That depends what you mean by consciousness.  If you mean the ability to process and interact with the environment, yes.  If you mean being aware of what things are like (i.e. qualitative experience), then no.  There is currently not even a decent theory of consciousness, though Rhythm and a couple others do have theories that they like.

Being aware of what things are like is exactly what processing information and interacting with the environment is, is what I'm saying. No additional mystery.

[GrandizerII]

Now the importance of what I've stated is important for my question. I've asked this several times in another thread but you and the others that believe that free will exists turned a blind eye to it, I got no response. Question is, can you break the causal chain with your brain/free will, or in other words can you break the causal chain (since you define yourself as your brain) and if so, how do you break the chain?

If you're wondering why I'm a tad bit cynical it's because we had this debate last week, you suddenly stopped responding and then you repeat the same thing all over again in another thread.

Perhaps you're asking the wrong question. This is not a challenge for compatibilists, but rather for libertarians. A compatibilist can perfectly say you can't break the causal chain but still have free will because free will is not about the ability to break causal chains.

[RozKek]

Now the importance of what I've stated is important for my question. I've asked this several times in another thread but you and the others that believe that free will exists turned a blind eye to it, I got no response. Question is, can you break the causal chain with your brain/free will, or in other words can you break the causal chain (since you define yourself as your brain) and if so, how do you break the chain?

If you're wondering why I'm a tad bit cynical it's because we had this debate last week, you suddenly stopped responding and then you repeat the same thing all over again in another thread.

Perhaps you're asking the wrong question. This is not a challenge for compatibilists, but rather for libertarians. A compatibilist can perfectly say you can't break the causal chain but still have free will because free will is not about the ability to break causal chains.

I.e the irrelevant free will.

[GrandizerII]

Perhaps you're asking the wrong question. This is not a challenge for compatibilists, but rather for libertarians. A compatibilist can perfectly say you can't break the causal chain but still have free will because free will is not about the ability to break causal chains.

I.e the irrelevant free will.

Not according to 60% of academic philosophers.

[RozKek]

I.e the irrelevant free will.

Not according to 60% of academic philosophers.

So what's relevant about it? Also, I think I stated that I'm talking about the free will where it's ultimately our choice.

[bennyboy]

That depends what you mean by consciousness.  If you mean the ability to process and interact with the environment, yes.  If you mean being aware of what things are like (i.e. qualitative experience), then no.  There is currently not even a decent theory of consciousness, though Rhythm and a couple others do have theories that they like.

Being aware of what things are like is exactly what processing information and interacting with the environment is, is what I'm saying. No additional mystery.

Then my cell phone has a rich and meaningful life.