If free will was not real

[Jehanne]

Those who disbelieved in free will would not post here.

You don't have to be a "mad dog" determinist to be an atheist; that's the whole point of the compatibilist argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

Obviously, that;s entirely out of consideration for me....but I do allow for there being some x that isn;t described by those two things.  A bootstrapper.  A higher order ability due to a confluence of lower order things which do not possess it.

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.

Because love isn't so easily contradicted.  Love is love, it rarely seems like hate.  Free will, when people describe it, doesn't seem to be so free.  

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.

I'd agree, individual neurons probably aren't conscious, a whole brain is (even part of a brain can be)...but does that have something to do with free will?  

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.

You have a more a compatibilist view of free will..I imagine.  I don't think that the term makes sense at all.  Being willing to -call- black blue, and black -being- blue are two different things.  If the process by which you form intent is not free....I'd simply say that your will is not free. Not that you didn't have a will, or intent.

[Excited Penguin]

Those who disbelieved in free will would not post here.

You don't have to be a "mad dog" determinist to be an atheist; that's the whole point of the compatibilist argument.

What?

[Jehanne]

You don't have to be a "mad dog" determinist to be an atheist; that's the whole point of the compatibilist argument.

What?

The Compatibilist position says that free will is compatible with determinism, whereas, the strict deterministic position says that it is not.  The "mad dog" is a joke about how determinists cannot be too passionate about their position, as they are not "free" to choose it, assuming, of course, that it is true to begin with.

IMHO, determinism is probably the true perspective on things, which means that absolute free will does not exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC we can be passionate...we simply have no choice in what we are passionate about, or the level to which we are passionate.  

I know -I'm- not free with regards to passion....but that's an easy example and may not be informative, lol.

[Excited Penguin]

What?

The Compatibilist position says that free will is compatible with determinism, whereas, the strict deterministic position says that it is not.  The "mad dog" is a joke about how determinists cannot be too passionate about their position, as they are not "free" to choose it, assuming, of course, that it is true to begin with.

IMHO, determinism is probably the true perspective on things, which means that absolute free will does not exist.

So you're a... compatibilist?

In my mind, the only difference between compatibilists and determinists is the former dishonestly choose to circulate an outdated and wrong idea, for whatever obstinate reasons drive them, infusing it with no additional meaning whatsoever that could possibly justify such an undertaking, even a little bit.

In other words, a compatibilist is to a determinist like a pantheist is to an atheist. No real difference, yet somehow, some people think we ought to differentiate between the two #because reasons.

[Jehanne]

The Compatibilist position says that free will is compatible with determinism, whereas, the strict deterministic position says that it is not.  The "mad dog" is a joke about how determinists cannot be too passionate about their position, as they are not "free" to choose it, assuming, of course, that it is true to begin with.

IMHO, determinism is probably the true perspective on things, which means that absolute free will does not exist.

So you're a... compatibilist?

In my mind, the only difference between compatibilists and determinists is the former dishonestly choose to circulate an outdated and wrong idea, for whatever obstinate reasons drive them, infusing it with no additional meaning whatsoever that could possibly justify such an undertaking, even a little bit.

I am a determinist, but, I respect compatibilists and their views and feel that I have no choice in the matter!

[Excited Penguin]

So you're a... compatibilist?

In my mind, the only difference between compatibilists and determinists is the former dishonestly choose to circulate an outdated and wrong idea, for whatever obstinate reasons drive them, infusing it with no additional meaning whatsoever that could possibly justify such an undertaking, even a little bit.

I am a determinist, but, I respect compatibilists and their views and feel that I have no choice in the matter!

How can there be a but here? What warrants a but?

If you're a determinist, why cater to compatibilists? I don't get you.

I assumed you were a compatibilist because you specifically said you didn't believe absolute free will didn't exist, which pretty much sums up compatibilist's views.

You can't "respect" someone's views if you don't agree with them. Or, are you talking about the sort of respect where you don't go screaming in the streets, cut people's heads off and terrorize the populace because of a difference of opinion?

How, exactly, do you "respect" someone's views, I wonder, while totally disagreeing with those views at the same time. You can respect the person, but there's no respecting the views, especially not if you don't agree with them.

[Jehanne]

I am a determinist, but, I respect compatibilists and their views and feel that I have no choice in the matter!

How can there be a but here? What warrants a but?

If you're a determinist, why cater to compatibilists? I don't get you.

I assumed you were a compatibilist because you specifically said you didn't believe absolute free will didn't exist, which pretty much sums up compatibilist's views.

You can't "respect" someone's views if you don't agree with them. Or, are you talking about the sort of respect where you don't go screaming in the streets, cut people's heads off and terrorize the populace because of a difference of opinion?

How, exactly, do you "respect" someone's views, I wonder, while totally disagreeing with those views at the same time. You can respect the person, but there's no respecting the views, especially not if you don't agree with them.

The existence of free will is a mystery; of course, this is referred to as being the the "hard problem".  Whether it can be solved or not, I cannot say, but my guess is that it will be solved.  Perhaps scientists someday will be able to arrange neurons in such a way as to prove that consciousness is simply biological with no supernatural element required.  Or, the hard problem may simply be intractable, which is hardly proof of a soul and/or some other non-materialistic dualism.

There are a lot of good atheistic folk who are compatibilists, and so, I think that everyone, on this question (free will), can fit into the tent.

[bennyboy]

You have a more a compatibilist view of free will..I imagine.  I don't think that the term makes sense at all.  Being willing to -call- black blue, and black -being- blue are two different things.  If the process by which you form intent is not free....I'd simply say that your will is not free.  Not that you didn't have a will, or intent.

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.

"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.

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.