If free will was not real

[GrandizerII]

I'm saying we are basically automatons. Robots.
I'm saying that if we are free to make decisions of any kind in reality then there is no reason for anything.
So two of those would count.
Not free to do anything random or spontaneous and not free as in we are slaves to nature.
And it would be a horrible thing if it weren't so complex that we can't really tell.
But it eliminates good and evil and it provides reasons for why people other than ourselves do things we don't understand.

You mean we're basically automatons but with higher levels of intelligence than current man-made/artificial automatons? Sure, I agree. But this also means we can do things current artificial automatons can't do because we have a higher level of intelligence. Like doing philosophy, for example.

So anyway, you see free as random/spontaneous is what you're saying? If there is no reason for anything, this implies randomness/spontaneity, right? So free will means random will?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, let's take a heroin addict.  He forms intent, on his own, and seeks out heroin.  Does his addiction compel him, or is it a part of his nature, and thus his intent and its expression as behavior free will?  This is the hardest case, along with the intent of schizophrenics and other dyfunctionals.  Is crazy something that happens to you, or is it what you are?  Does medication that normalizes your behavior give you BACK free will, or prevent you from forming intent as a free agent?  These are the interesting questions-- not whether free will is real, but how we should define the self.  In the end, I'd say it's not the free will that will likely turn out to be illusion, but the sense of the self as a thing, and ALL that means-- love, responsibility, etc.

If there is no self, then what has free will? You haven't defined free will (as loose as your definition is) without explicit reference to the self. It's -your- ability to form intent. Something -you- do free of external obstruction or compulsion. Pull the rug out from under that and there's no reason to even discuss free will, as you define it. In what sense could self be illusory, but free will, even as you define it, be otherwise?

I don't think that med's give people back anything they lost...that's certainly not how the effect of those meds are described in any meaningful sense, more like ad copy and testimonials. Since I don't -assume- free will in asking that question... shrugs. A significant number of mood altering chemicals are inhibitors of some stripe. Inhibit the clockwork- alter the self, the will, the intent, the pursuant behavior which is expressed and forms all of our examples one way or another. Related to the above...that these chemicals work certainly -seems- to suggest that the self is a thing that other things act upon in predictable ways. It's as if our will can be manipulated with something as simple as alcohol. Our sense of self (and will) doesn't seem to be the sort of thing we could describe as illusory, even if we could describe either as being hilariously inaccurate. When you ask "does x give us back our free will" I'd say no. I'd say that x (or some inhibiting x, or a few too many drinks) affect our will.

It never went anywhere. What you describe as free will is merely a description of what will you experience when you don;t realize you're under the influence of y and z. Your SOP. Forest for the trees sort of thing.

[Little lunch]

I'm saying we are basically automatons. Robots.
I'm saying that if we are free to make decisions of any kind in reality then there is no reason for anything.
So two of those would count.
Not free to do anything random or spontaneous and not free as in we are slaves to nature.
And it would be a horrible thing if it weren't so complex that we can't really tell.
But it eliminates good and evil and it provides reasons for why people other than ourselves do things we don't understand.

You mean we're basically automatons but with higher levels of intelligence than current man-made/artificial automatons? Sure, I agree. But this also means we can do things current artificial automatons can't do because we have a higher level of intelligence. Like doing philosophy, for example.

So anyway, you see free as random/spontaneous is what you're saying? If there is no reason for anything, this implies randomness/spontaneity, right? So free will means random will?

Yes. I'll have to continue this conversation tomorrow cause my daughter is having nightmares.
I thought I put her back to sleep but she just come in my bedroom with her pillow and blanket. :-)

[GrandizerII]

You mean we're basically automatons but with higher levels of intelligence than current man-made/artificial automatons? Sure, I agree. But this also means we can do things current artificial automatons can't do because we have a higher level of intelligence. Like doing philosophy, for example.

So anyway, you see free as random/spontaneous is what you're saying? If there is no reason for anything, this implies randomness/spontaneity, right? So free will means random will?

Yes. I'll have to continue this conversation tomorrow cause my daughter is having nightmares.
I thought I put her back to sleep but she just come in my bedroom with her pillow and blanket. :-)

Cute.

[Edwardo Piet]

That's adorable.

[RoadRunner79]

I gather, from your post, and a number of posts from others, that what is being expounded on here, is that choices are entirely a mechanistic process brought about by physical forces within the brain.   That given X in you will get Y out (with a  very complicated equation in between).   Wouldn't this also apply to any logic or rational you are using to determine this?   If what you are saying is true, then it would seem that you also have to free will to say whether yours or benny's logic is right or wrong.  Or that you can say it, but have no way to determine if one is more correct than the other.  Would you agree?

No, we're both just evaluating, thinking critically and logically based upon our knowledge (even that isn't ultimately our decision) it doesn't require free will, why would it? I don't know if I actually answered your question, I didn't really get what you're saying. I don't need free will to use logic and be rational, it's just happening in my brain and we can then evaluate or determine which one is correct by, well, using logic, critical thinking etc although even that is ultimately beyond our control.

Sorry for the delay in the response.   But isn't the critical thinking, evaluation or determining, also just part of the same process?  If these things are beyond your control, and there is no reason from their causes, for why they should be correct, then how can you trust them?  Even as you write, you speak of initiating these things, which suggests will and something outside of just physical forces. 

It would seem that any suggestion to think critically, or even claiming to do so, is rather pointless, and inconsequential.

[RozKek]

No, we're both just evaluating, thinking critically and logically based upon our knowledge (even that isn't ultimately our decision) it doesn't require free will, why would it? I don't know if I actually answered your question, I didn't really get what you're saying. I don't need free will to use logic and be rational, it's just happening in my brain and we can then evaluate or determine which one is correct by, well, using logic, critical thinking etc although even that is ultimately beyond our control.

Sorry for the delay in the response.   But isn't the critical thinking, evaluation or determining, also just part of the same process?  If these things are beyond your control, and there is no reason from their causes, for why they should be correct, then how can you trust them?  Even as you write, you speak of initiating these things, which suggests will and something outside of just physical forces. 

It would seem that any suggestion to think critically, or even claiming to do so, is rather pointless, and inconsequential.

It's /debate for me, this is leading nowhere, I'd rather spend my time doing other stuff. Sorry, I myself don't like leaving a debate, so this is a bit hypocritical of me, however this time it's enough for me. 

But anyway, I can't help myself: Yes all of the thinking is also determined. I can trust them because my evaluation is based around facts, science and such. It's just none of it was my choice, the process of the evaluation and such, the knowledge I've received, nothing is. However, there is still a correct answer and one of us must be the closest to the correct answer and I believe I am correct mainly because as said, my evaluation, critical thinking etc has so far been based on facts and science and my definition of free will hasn't been limited to only the everyday life, I'm taking into account as many factors as possible and it seems that one factor is cancelling out all the other factors or there is actually/ultimately only one factor. I haven't afaik proposed anything that is not credible, or just pulled out of thin air. It doesn't make a difference if the process of evaluation and critical thinking is free or not, it's the same process.

Anyway, this is /debate for me, feel free to ask these same questions and continue the debate with someone else.

[bennyboy]

No, let's take a heroin addict.  He forms intent, on his own, and seeks out heroin.  Does his addiction compel him, or is it a part of his nature, and thus his intent and its expression as behavior free will?  This is the hardest case, along with the intent of schizophrenics and other dyfunctionals.  Is crazy something that happens to you, or is it what you are?  Does medication that normalizes your behavior give you BACK free will, or prevent you from forming intent as a free agent?  These are the interesting questions-- not whether free will is real, but how we should define the self.  In the end, I'd say it's not the free will that will likely turn out to be illusion, but the sense of the self as a thing, and ALL that means-- love, responsibility, etc.

If there is no self, then what has free will?  You haven't defined free will (as loose as your definition is) without explicit reference to the self.  It's -your- ability to form intent.  Something -you- do free of external obstruction or compulsion.  Pull the rug out from under that and there's no reason to even discuss free will, as you define it.  In what sense could self be illusory, but free will, even as you define it, be otherwise?  

If you pull out the idea of the individual self, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, doesn't it? Sometimes it seems we are picking at this or that aspect of human agency, but very tenderly avoiding the inevitable "not-self" thread. I'm not suggesting this, I'm just pointing out that it's getting pretty close to the surface.

I don't think that med's give people back anything they lost...that's certainly not how the effect of those meds are described in any meaningful sense, more like ad copy and testimonials.  Since I don't -assume- free will in asking that question... shrugs.  A significant number of mood altering chemicals are inhibitors of some stripe.  Inhibit the clockwork- alter the self, the will, the intent, the pursuant behavior which is expressed and forms all of our examples one way or another.  Related to the above...that these chemicals work certainly -seems- to suggest that the self is a thing that other things act upon in predictable ways.  It's as if our will can be manipulated with something as simple as alcohol.  Our sense of self (and will) doesn't seem to be the sort of thing we could describe as illusory, even if we could describe either as being hilariously inaccurate.  When you ask "does x give us back our free will" I'd say no.  I'd say that x (or some inhibiting x, or a few too many drinks) affect our will.  

Yep, you might be confused, because I'm exploring an idea that seems contrary to my position on free will. But that's not an accident-- trying to hide from issues that challenge your views is intellectual dishonesty, and that's not what I aspire to. I will happily throw my entire world view under the bus if it will generate just a few posts worth reading and writing.

In most of us, the self isn't really that malleable. We hold reasonably consistent views across time, have reasonably consistent habits, etc. But a single stroke can change all that, or another life event.

It never went anywhere.  What you describe as free will is merely a description of what will you experience when you don;t realize you're under the influence of y and z.  Your SOP.   Forest for the trees sort of thing.

Maybe. That's because I want to discuss my definitions of will under the condition of a highly malleable personhood. So my definitions yet again:
1) Will is the capacity to express intent as a behavior.
2) Free will is the capacity to express intent without compulsion or obstruction from outside the agent forming the intent.

One might say the essence of self is the capacity to form and act on intent, and nothing more than that. But circles are circles, and they are bad.

Let's say I've have a stroke, and now I have an overwhelming desire to fuck a goat, and an inability to move my right leg. The goat desire comes from my brain, which has been damaged-- but not from any outside influence, but from a malfunction in my brain, which if there's a self you'd agree is it, I believe?

Furthermore, the leg no longer responds to my will-- my intent to move it. It just sits there. But the fault, again, is in the brain-- the neuronal structures involved in moving the leg have been damaged. My question now is this, is the damaged structure a part of the self which is dysfunctional, or is it actually itself a mechanism, called upon BY the self, but contained inside the head.

I'm guessing you can see how I'm going to reduce the brain to the essence of the self, and you know if we do this what we will/won't find. But what say you so far?

[RoadRunner79]

Sorry for the delay in the response.   But isn't the critical thinking, evaluation or determining, also just part of the same process?  If these things are beyond your control, and there is no reason from their causes, for why they should be correct, then how can you trust them?  Even as you write, you speak of initiating these things, which suggests will and something outside of just physical forces. 

It would seem that any suggestion to think critically, or even claiming to do so, is rather pointless, and inconsequential.

It's /debate for me, this is leading nowhere, I'd rather spend my time doing other stuff. Sorry, I myself don't like leaving a debate, so this is a bit hypocritical of me, however this time it's enough for me. 

But anyway, I can't help myself: Yes all of the thinking is also determined. I can trust them because my evaluation is based around facts, science and such. It's just none of it was my choice, the process of the evaluation and such, the knowledge I've received, nothing is. However, there is still a correct answer and one of us must be the closest to the correct answer and I believe I am correct mainly because as said, my evaluation, critical thinking etc has so far been based on facts and science and my definition of free will hasn't been limited to only the everyday life, I'm taking into account as many factors as possible and it seems that one factor is cancelling out all the other factors or there is actually/ultimately only one factor. I haven't afaik proposed anything that is not credible, or just pulled out of thin air. It doesn't make a difference if the process of evaluation and critical thinking is free or not, it's the same process.

Anyway, this is /debate for me, feel free to ask these same questions and continue the debate with someone else.

I can understand, if you don't want to discuss (sometimes life takes precedence)  however, I don't think you have done much to support your claim, more than just reassert it.  I think that issue is, that our evaluation, critical thinking, or assessment of the facts is based on the same thing as is being discussed concerning free will.  You are telling me of all the things you are doing, but that is what is under question.   If they are the results of purely physical necessity, that does necessarily yield a logical or even epistemologically valid result.   You can evaluate the process, about which you came to this conclusion, but then again, you are going to come to one physically necessary conclusion, that doesn't require that it is logical.  Even in acquiring the knowledge, with which your are comparing, you will accept or reject this knowledge, completely out of your control, and based on physics not logic (according to what you are proposing).  

I would agree, that it would seem likely that one of us, is more accurate to reality in this regard.   The question is, can we think about this critically, and is it even possible for us to change our minds or assess it in another way.  I don't know what this one factor is  you think you have which trumps everything else.  However, I think that you need to apply some logic, along with your science (if it's within your ability)

[The Grand Nudger]

Let's say I've have a stroke, and now I have an overwhelming desire to fuck a goat, and an inability to move my right leg.  The goat desire comes from my brain, which has been damaged-- but not from any outside influence, but from a malfunction in my brain, which if there's a self you'd agree is it, I believe?

Regardless of whether or not our description of self is accurate - I'd say that this desire comes from the brain, sure.  That there is no "outside damage" is, I think...a stretch.  The various causes of strokes would be the "outside damage".   Should've skipped a few more deserts, stayed away from smokes, etc.  

Furthermore, the leg no longer responds to my will-- my intent to move it.  It just sits there.  But the fault, again, is in the brain-- the neuronal structures involved in moving the leg have been damaged.  My question now is this, is the damaged structure a part of the self which is dysfunctional, or is it actually itself a mechanism, called upon BY the self, but contained inside the head.

I don't know.  I don't think it is a part of the self.  It's a part of the same system...but in the example offered, where you still "have self" and just cant move your leg...I'd say that's probably not an issue of damage to the self, even if it is damage to an associated mechanism.  Doesn't appear to be damage to the will or intent either.   I know you hate the computer analogy...but, is a computer any more or less free before or after it's been damaged, or depending on the source of the damage as interior or exterior?  It just doesn't seem to be informative with regards to -that-.