If free will was not real

[bennyboy]

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.

Will has nothing to do with decisions, at least as I define it. It has to do with intent.

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.

You can apply all this thinking to every aspect of personhood, not only free will. The sense of self is also an illusion, and even consciousness itself can be thought of that way-- just a byproduct of brain function. Even a solid surface exists only as an idea. But these are all things which are part of human existence, and pretending they're not there is like saying, "Sand shouldn't exist. . . so all that sandy stuff out there is bullshit!"

But this isn't a very interesting view of reality. My view is based on experience, not on an interpretation of a model of the universe. I go out, walk around, and do whatever seems good according to my nature.

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?

It's a strange question to ask me, since I've never asserted that free will means breaking the causal chain. My terms have been well defined, I think, so asking me to answer on your terms is a little pointless.

[RozKek]

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.

Will has nothing to do with decisions, at least as I define it.  It has to do with intent.

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.

You can apply all this thinking to every aspect of personhood, not only free will.  The sense of self is also an illusion, and even consciousness itself can be thought of that way-- just a byproduct of brain function.  Even a solid surface exists only as an idea.  But these are all things which are part of human existence, and pretending they're not there is like saying, "Sand shouldn't exist. . . so all that sandy stuff out there is bullshit!"

But this isn't a very interesting view of reality.  My view is based on experience, not on an interpretation of a model of the universe.  I go out, walk around, and do whatever seems good according to my nature.

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?

It's a strange question to ask me, since I've never asserted that free will means breaking the causal chain.  My terms have been well defined, I think, so asking me to answer on your terms is a little pointless.

You seem to assume that you decide what your intention is. You don't. Your intention originates in your brain (or you) however your brain/you still follow the causal chain therefore your intentions aren't free either. Your intentions are also fully determined, and if indeterminism is true and affects your intention then it's partly random and there's no free in random except free from determinism but not free for choice. So even by your definition "free intention" doesn't exist either in other words your intention isn't free.

Yeah, you're totally correct. Everything is the same thing in a sense, water is water not because it isn't made of the same thing fire is made of (in this context I'm talking about particles, that's the important bit) but because the particles that make water are organized in a unique way forming water, differentiating it from fire, we're just describing them with words. So, yes you can say everything is just an idea. I am a human being, the earth is a planet, we're called different words because we have different properties (the particles we consist of are organized in unique ways, giving us different properties) it's just our way of communicating. But fundamentally we're the same thing. I have as much free will as the earth has, we're both just a set of particles acting/moving according to the universe.

Talking about consciousness. If consciousness didn't exist a human would still be able to make decisions, act etc. It would just not be aware of it. Why? Because every single action is just the result of particles moving e.g your neural net interacting making your arm go here and there, you get the point. We're just conscious observers. I personally believe that consciousness is just a by product. Complexity and intelligence doesn't necessarily require consciousness afaik.

Anyway, sand does exist. When I say sand ultimately you can say I'm refering to particles organized in a certain way forming what we describe sand as. In the end they're all just particles organized in different ways forming different properties that we refer to with different words.

And it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, whether it's an interesting view of reality, if it's true it's true. And when you evaluate and something seems good to your nature even the process of that evaluation isn't ultimately your decision, it was either partly random or bound to happen exactly the way it happened.

Well then, if you agree that you cannot break the causal chain, problem solved. All your intentions, actions, desires and such are a part of the causal chain and you cannot do anything to do otherwise but you can imagine different things to do. However even those imaginations i.e what you'll imagine would also be a part of that causal chain, in other words not under your control ultimately speaking.

[quip]

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.

What exactly are you thinking?  More to the point, how are you discerning between the basic concept of the will in relation to your idea of it being free viz freewill.

[Jehanne]

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.

What?!


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.

Sean Carroll is a compatibilist; he seems like a nice guy, a good atheist.

[Jehanne]

Free will debates are so frustrating. The fucking philosophers rarely degree on definition and the boundaries of application. My opinion is that if determinists are correct, something I doubt can ever be proven or definitively disproved, our species is still reconciled to navigating our existence as if we had free will. So in the end it really doesn't make a fuck.

I agree, although, the idea of determinism opens-up new realms of possibility, such as a less judgmental World, and one where child nutrition, care and education are fundamental priorities.

[bennyboy]

You seem to assume that you decide what your intention is. You don't. Your intention originates in your brain (or you) however your brain/you still follow the causal chain therefore your intentions aren't free either. Your intentions are also fully determined, and if indeterminism is true and affects your intention then it's partly random and there's no free in random except free from determinism but not free for choice. So even by your definition "free intention" doesn't exist either in other words your intention isn't free.

You are still talking about things I've never talked about. I never talked about "free intention," or about indeterminism. That's what you guys want this debate to be about, but it's not the assertion I'm making.

I'm saying that will is the capacity of a thinking agent to express intent as behavior, i.e. to bring about some change in the world outside the self. Free will is the capacity to form intent based on one's personhood, and to express it without either compulsion or obstacle from outside.

And it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, whether it's an interesting view of reality, if it's true it's true. And when you evaluate and something seems good to your nature even the process of that evaluation isn't ultimately your decision, it was either partly random or bound to happen exactly the way it happened.

Well then, if you agree that you cannot break the causal chain, problem solved. All your intentions, actions, desires and such are a part of the causal chain and you cannot do anything to do otherwise but you can imagine different things to do. However even those imaginations i.e what you'll imagine would also be a part of that causal chain, in other words not under your control ultimately speaking.

There's this "you" again. Everything involved with my forming intent, including all the brain function, is part of me. So I do not accept that I have to have some magical non-deterministic yet self-expressed capacity to change my brain function in order to say I have free will. Free will is the expression of the self, and cannot therefore be applied to anything about the self, including the process of forming intent. If you do that, you're demanding that the self and the expression of the self are identical, which is not a very sensible statement.

[bennyboy]

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.

What exactly are you thinking?  More to the point, how are you discerning between the basic concept of the will in relation to your idea of it being free viz freewill.

I've defined it plenty of times in previous posts, but I don't mind.  Here are the definitions I'm working under:

"will" is the capacity of a sentient agent to realize intent-- for example, I don't really know how to "move" a leg-- I want it to move, and it moves.

"free will" is the capacity of a person to form intent based on the personhood, without compulsion or obstacle from the external world.

[Foxaèr]

To further add to bennyboy's post, there is as much a difference between secular free will and religious free will in comparison to secular faith and religious faith.

Allow that to sink in for a bit. I am certain you are all smart enough to figure it out, maybe.

[Edwardo Piet]

There's compatabilist and incompatabilist free will.

[quip]

What exactly are you thinking?  More to the point, how are you discerning between the basic concept of the will in relation to your idea of it being free viz freewill.

"will" is the capacity of a sentient agent to realize intent-- for example, I don't really know how to "move" a leg-- I want it to move, and it moves.

Then the will falls under the constraint of intended realization.  Moreover, are your intentions freely wrought? How can any of this be considered free?

Your argument is akin to a man held within a cell proclaiming that he holds the willful capacity to freely move about his environs all for the effort of denying his ambient constraints.

At best....it's superficial.