If free will was not real

[RozKek]

On the subject of error...location is not freedom.  Identity is not freedom.  You're describing a local will, -your- will.....but why is it a free will, again?

Go and get that cake you dirty junkie.  

You know what I'm gonna say, but I'll say it anyway. 

My will is free if it isn't under coercion from other agents. And the deterministic causal process which constitute my will don't qualify as other agents. 

And that cake was good. Soooo good. Mmmmm.

Why does it have to be coercion from an agent and why do you exclude determinism? If I define determinism as an agent, does it strip the free from your will?

[Whateverist]

If free will was not real .. I would never have chosen to open this thread.

[Gemini]

I;m invalidating your use of the frontal lobe as a goal post shifting requirement for free will when your previous criteria didn't -fail- per se...but led to a conclusion that you did not like...that a thermostat has your description of free will just as surely as we do.

It's not goal post shifting at all. My original description of free will was "experience of making a decision." Unless you've committed to some kind of panpsychism in your philosophy of consciousness, your attempt at a reductio via thermostat never got off the starting line.

If the impetus for your using the term in such a way is merely to make the assertions work, then it;s a poor reason to use the term in such a way.  Is heroin addiction not duress?  Can you maintain your convenient use of the term..with a straight face, in response to -that- question.  Because if you can;t...that;s probably a hint that something has gone awry in your propositional structure and use of terms.  

Nope. I am scrupulous about the denotation of my words in the way that only a pedantic bitch like me can be

Heroin addiction is not duress. It is compulsion.

I don;t acknowledge it;s freedom, in any sense, or in any situation you have heretofore described.  If I did, we wouldn;t be having this wonderful disagreement.  I don't think we possess even what -you- describe as free will.  
-or did I misread that?

I thought you had agreed that have autonomy in the legal sense?

[Gemini]

You know what I'm gonna say, but I'll say it anyway. 

My will is free if it isn't under coercion from other agents. And the deterministic causal process which constitute my will don't qualify as other agents. 

And that cake was good. Soooo good. Mmmmm.

Why does it have to be coercion from an agent and why do you exclude determinism? If I define determinism as an agent, does it strip the free from your will?

Because that's the legal definition of coercion--it's just stipulated as being made by an agent.

If you define all deterministic causal processes as agents, then we need a new word to describe organisms that interact with their environments via complex information processing systems, with the ability to prevision the outcomes of multiple different courses of action and select between them based on which outcome best supports the values within their motivational framework.

[Gemini]

I like Rhythm a lot.

I like him too. And not just when he disagrees with me--he's a terror to smug religious nuts, and I have to confess I enjoy watching the carnage.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not goal post shifting at all. My original description of free will was "experience of making a decision." Unless you've committed to some kind of panpsychism in your philosophy of consciousness, your attempt at a reductio via thermostat never got off the starting line.

If you like..I can go back and quote the -many- differing requirements you've proposed...all as a way of responding to various objections I've made regarding the previous requirements specifically.  I shouldn't have to...and look, we sometimes do this and don't mean to or don't realize it, I do it to.   If you really want to insist that your requirements have not altered themselves in light of my input as this conversation has progressed....then I;m going to use -that- as a means of questioning the freedom of your will....and that will -really- irritate you. Take a look at that, btw...do you see anything about a frontal lobe in that initial description? If something experiences decisionmaking without a frontal lobe, it still fits the description..does it not?

Still free will thread besties, right?  

Now, on the subject of just that statement...it doesn;t even approach a reference to any freedom..it;s just the acknowledgement that we experience decision-making..and since the question we're asking ourselves is whether or not that decisionmaking is free...and if it is, to what extent or in what sense, simply saying that we experience decision-making won't move -those- chains.  

Nope. I am scrupulous about the denotation of my words in the way that only a pedantic bitch like me can be

Heroin addiction is not duress. It is compulsion.

Okay, so you are okay then with compulsion, but not duress.  If your will is ultimately compelled...then it's still free...but if it's under duress..it is not?  Isn't the operative portion of duress...in context..it's ability to compel, to be a compulsive factor?  

(heroin addicts certainly act like they're under considerable duress...but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one)

I thought you had agreed that have autonomy in the legal sense?

No, no no no.  I simply mentioned that it is not required for us to have autonomy in the legal sense for us to justify what we do based upon that assumption..such as remove people from the gp. Whether Bob hacked those girls up of his own accord..or just couldn't help himself, or was hard programmed by a brilliant but mad scientist to do it......he's going into a tiny box for the rest of his life.

[Edwardo Piet]

If free was real prior causes would never have forced my willpower to open this thread.

Although... we could just call this willpower of mine my free will right?

[Edwardo Piet]

I like Rhythm a lot.

I like him too. And not just when he disagrees with me--he's a terror to smug religious nuts, and I have to confess I enjoy watching the carnage.

Same. I don't get the disagreement but you're more intellectually sexy and impressive to me than he is so I'm just gonna say you're right.

[Gemini]

If you like..I can go back and quote the -many- differing requirements you've proposed...all as a way of responding to various objections I've made regarding the previous requirements specifically.

I think I can sum it up:

The experience of making a decision.

What we have that people with frontal lobe damage don't have.

Decision made by a mentally healthy agent free from coercion/duress.

Neural process unfolding in the frontal lobes.

I wouldn't say that my requirements haven't alter, but I have refined them in light of your input, and that's to your credit. I really am not meaning to shift goalposts--just to get better at making my case for compatibilism.

Still free will thread besties, right?  

Now, on the subject of just that statement...it doesn;t even approach a reference to any freedom..it;s just the acknowledgement that we experience decision-making..and since the question we're asking ourselves is whether or not that decisionmaking is free...and if it is, to what extent or in what sense, simply saying that we experience decision-making won't move -those- chains.  

You're quite right that it's not an reference to causal freedom, because I don't believe we have that kind of freedom. I'm noting that the kind of causal process that mentally healthy humans engage in is qualitatively different from that of a thermostat. Whether thermostats are causally constrained or not is irrelevant. They don't have a will, so a fortiori they don't have free will, compatibilist or otherwise.

Okay, so you are okay then with compulsion, but not duress.  If your will is ultimately compelled...then it's still free...but if it's under duress..it is not?  Isn't the operative portion of duress...in context..it's ability to compel, to be a compulsive factor?  

I'm actually just noting that the irresistable urge of the heroin addict is, per the dictionary definition, not duress, but compulsion.

As it pertains to my argument, the causal processes that constitute my will do not in any way compel or force my will, in the way that a coercive agent or an extreme physical addiction does. My point is that "causally determined" is not synonymous with duress, coercion, or force.

No, no no no.  I simply mentioned that it is not required for us to have autonomy in the legal sense for us to justify what we do based upon that assumption..such as remove people from the gp.  Whether Bob hacked those girls up of his own accord..or just couldn't help himself......he's going into a tiny box for the rest of his life.

Then don't we need a vocabulary to use when we do what we do based on the legal definition of autonomy? What's wrong with the vocabulary already in place?

[RozKek]

Why does it have to be coercion from an agent and why do you exclude determinism? If I define determinism as an agent, does it strip the free from your will?

Because that's the legal definition of coercion--it's just stipulated as being made by an agent.

If you define all deterministic causal processes as agents, then we need a new word to describe organisms that interact with their environments via complex information processing systems, with the ability to prevision the outcomes of multiple different courses of action and select between them based on which outcome best supports the values within their motivational framework.

Isn't organisms that interact with their environments via complex information processing systems, with the ability to prevision the outcomes of multiple different courses of action and select between them based on which outcome best supports the values within their motivational framework merely the result of neurons interacting? Aren't neurons made of particles and aren't particles causal? Doesn't that make every single thought, decision, movement, every complex evaluation (you get the point) already determined? It isn't free if it's already determined. You can dream and think of all kinds of capabilities and "possibilities" but only one of them will happen and the one that happens was bound to happen, it isn't free in that case. That's what they call the illusion of free will. And don't tell me it's trivial, whether it's trivial or not, it's true. And it isn't trivial.