If free will was not real

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm fine with the ambiguity. In the case of a lost leg, I can no more walk than I can fly. I can still generate the intent, but there is no longer the capacity to manifest it in reality.

I'm open to redefining definitions and looking at new angles. In fact, I've already started doing this already in this thread. But let me give a specific example, so you know what I mean by "will." Let's say I want to move my arm. I form the intent to move it, and then I will it-- the "will" being something like a wish almost. I do not really know how my arm moves-- I just want it to, and it does. That's what I mean by will. Now, if I'm in an environment in which I can move my arm back and forth as much as I want, at a whim, then I'd say I have free will, at least in regard to that behavior.

But I'm perfectly willing to carry on a discussion under whatever definition you want to propose, and perhaps the outcome will be different.

You're talking about your ability to move your arm, not free will. Whether or not its freely willed hasn't even been considered. You say you don't know how it happens, but you would -have- to know that to declare it an effect of free will by either the standard definition -or- your own.

@Roz He's not confused, he's trying to manufacture a definition for free will that can be rationally maintained, is all. He knows that his free will is not the free will anyone else is discussing.

[RozKek]

Compatabilist free will is trivially true and incompatabilist free will is completely false.

/thread

I think you've captured the essence of the debate, yes.

However, when I'm buying my ice cream, the absolute truth doesn't matter to me too much-- I'm just happy to get my Rocky Road!

This is how I feel about it too,  I don't give a rats ass why I decided to take an ice cream snickers, I'll just enjoy it. And to further extend it, I don't give a rats ass why my SO would like me, I just enjoy her prescence and I like her too, amirite? Of course, you can say, I like the snickers because of its taste, but it is possible to trivially extend it further out and say, well I like snickers because of the Big Bang and my neural net interacting in such a way *blablabla*. Even if it might be correct, it's not important nor does it make for a fun talk.

However I still think the lack of free will is important in more complex situtations, like in a court room, however I still do dislike that idea.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it's easy to miss the relevance of the subject to areas that -are- important to us because it;s a background process, regardless of whether or not it's free.  Out of sight, out of mind, as it were.  

How we treat prisoners, for example, is intrinsically tied to a notion of will that may be folklore.  Turn that one around in your mouth.  We're effectively convicting people on murder charges by means of witchcraft, and then using yet more witchcraft to justify our treatment of those people, at the moment, lol. Do we recondition them? No. We punish them for what they freely willed to do. That one easy though, right? How about a failing student? Do we recondition that student, or do we punish them for freely willing to be a jackass in class? Trouble with the wife? Is she just a freely willing bitch..or is it possible that the dysfunction in our relationship is an issue of conditioned response....and can we change it, if we wanted to? Tired of making consistently poor decisions? Are you just a dummy with a shitty free willer.........or could that situation be improved? Need to market a product? Is there some way to deeply compel a consumer to buy? Need to kill an abusive industry, say smokes...is there some way to deeply compel a consumer to avoid a purchase? How to best get your candidate elected? How to best defeat your political opposition? Managing the flow of traffic? Military training and tactics? Early childhood development and "proper" parenting of toddlers? AI research...........?

Find me some area where a better and more accurate understanding of will, free or otherwise - and the subsequent human behaviors it is expressed as -wouldn't- be important (or fun)? We're basically asking the question "why do we decide to do what we do, and how do we do that". That;s why I, personally, don;t see any use (let alone sense) in trying to define our way -around- a problem, manufacturing a free will - reason in reverse (rationalization, ret-conning), rather than accepting things for what they are and working -from- there to wherever it leads.

[bennyboy]

One problem is that we are trying to symbolize, in a way usable in all or most cases, the function of an extremely complex organ-- whose state and function in the past we cannot know post-fact.

Saying, "Stuff happened in his brain, and so he stabbed his mother to death" isn't necessarily more useful than "He with malice and intent did plunge his knife through his mother's heart." Unless you know exactly what stuff, and how to fix his behavior so that it will be guaranteed to be acceptable in the future, the philosophical belief/understanding of physical determinism doesn't really tell us how to go ahead.

[The Grand Nudger]

I disagree, an understanding of how the things we call intent (or will, or free will) play out in a deterministic framework is the -basis- for a scientific understanding of human behavior.  Useful isn;t even the word.  More like crucial.  Such an understanding couldn't do anything -other- than tell us how to go forward. Or we could stick with malice aforethought, punitive measures, moral desert...all these things that have done so very, very well......

We needn't know exactly what stuff, or how to fix all of the stuff. A simple acknowledgement of environmental motivations and the inadequecy of our descriptions of free will suffices. It's exactly the sort of thing -we do- when we profile violent criminals and say..."well, they have this sort of pattern behind them, let's set ourselves up so that people are not subjected to "x" and that should reduce the rate of violent crime" - which it does. It would be nice to know exactly what stuff, and how to fix all the stuff, ofc...it's just not a requirement. In the same way that we learned to fly before we fully understood flight.

[Edwardo Piet]

Most useful post in this entire thread, kudos.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Compatabilism is the idea that free will in the legal pragmatic sense is the only kind of free will worth thinking about because it's the only kind that exists.

Is that different from determinism?

[Tiberius]

Most people seem to get confused over free will because it certainly seems that we have it (we are actively thinking about decisions before making them).

The problem happens when you start to really question that "active thinking". Sure, you can say you went to an ice cream store and thought about whether to have chocolate or vanilla, and decided on chocolate, but... did you actually decide? There's no actual way to tell; we can't rewind time and observe you choosing vanilla instead. From an external perspective, all you did was go into the store and get chocolate.

It gets even more confusing when you think about the nature of free will vs the physical nature of the brain. The brain is a bunch of neurons firing in reaction to various stimuli. What if your brain is the one actually making the decision (predetermined by the stimuli) and your "thought process" in which you actively come to a decision is just an illusion, a byproduct of the brain.

Occams razor suggests that the illusion of free will is more likely than actual free will.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think some people get confused and think that just because we are conscious of thoughts that means we get to pick what thoughts pop into our awareness. They pop into our head and then we are aware of them and take credit for them, but how can we create them out of nothing? I think the simple answer is: We cannot. And if we don't even have free will with regards to our own conscious thought processes, how can our conscious decisions be free ones? Conscious decision =/= free conscious decision.

[GrandizerII]

Most people seem to get confused over free will because it certainly seems that we have it (we are actively thinking about decisions before making them).

The problem happens when you start to really question that "active thinking". Sure, you can say you went to an ice cream store and thought about whether to have chocolate or vanilla, and decided on chocolate, but... did you actually decide? There's no actual way to tell; we can't rewind time and observe you choosing vanilla instead. From an external perspective, all you did was go into the store and get chocolate.

It gets even more confusing when you think about the nature of free will vs the physical nature of the brain. The brain is a bunch of neurons firing in reaction to various stimuli. What if your brain is the one actually making the decision (predetermined by the stimuli) and your "thought process" in which you actively come to a decision is just an illusion, a byproduct of the brain.

Occams razor suggests that the illusion of free will is more likely than actual free will.

I agree with those premises but reach a different conclusion because I'm using imo a better definition of free as related to will. Even if I don't actually consciously make the decisions but are simply made aware of them after the fact, and even though external factors certainly play a role in the decision making process in an indirect manner, if it's my brain formulating these decisions, then it's still me (arbitrarily) making these decisions, though I may not be consciously making them. It's not like I end up consciously disapproving of these decisions. So I still do what I desire to do.