If free will was not real

[The Grand Nudger]

"Researchers get a glimpse of what free will looks like in the brain"--It's not a stretch. And I never said we couldn't prosecute people if we didn't have free will (as defined by compatibilists). I get the impression that you're assuming compatibilists are trying to reconcile the incompatibilist, libertarian kind of free will with hard determinism.

That's not what we're doing. We're just (1) being careful to avoid describing determinism in terms that make it seem like fatalism and (2) redefining what "free will" means.

You just linked a popularizing article that uses the term free for the same reasons as anyone else does.  Flourish.  As for (2)...yes, by defining all of the "freedom" out of it.  

From section 3.1, "3.1 Freedom According to Classical Compatibilism"

"...freedom of the sort pertinent to moral evaluation is nothing more than an agent's ability to do what she wishes in the absence of impediments that would otherwise stand in her way." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#TerOneForFreWilPro

Which is a freedom nowhere in evidence.  What is in evidence is a vast mountain of observations to the contrary, cutting even at the heart of what you -want- in the first place.  

As for the reasons we discussed at length, I'm happy to concede that your nest thermometer has freedom in the compatibilist sense, but not will.

(And sometimes I stomp on it  . Cause fuck nest thermometers!)

I don't think a nest has a will either (if we're the standard of reference), but I don't think that what we have is too far off from what it has, and I expect to see thermostats with a will before I die.  

A better comparison would be our consideraton of a mentally compromised person as unfit for trial due to the fact that his intellectual faculties were so diminished that he didn't know what effects his actions would have. Nothing impeded his freedom to act, he just didn't have a "will" that could be impeded by anything. Like a nest thermometer.

That would be a -less damning- comparison, specifically to your position...but better, idk why.  No one doubts the will of those folks, you know.  We just see it to be compromised.  They wanted to do it, that's why they did it. It;s a point you;ll have to take up with the other "compatibilist" in thread, Benny, who has very literally defined free will as the ability to act in accordance with ones nature...etc etc tc.

In any case, you think that some people are about as free as a nest thermo...but that you're different, do you?

[Gemini]

I'm struggling with his transcendental idealism. Maybe you could use your hermaneutic in my Kant...use it slowly and skillfully, until the meaning explodes out of the text.

I've never been very excited by philosophy before.  But there's something about your post that. . . just. . . hmmm I can't put my finger on it.

*nods wisely*

Ah, yes. You see, the etymological roots of "philosophy" are both "sophia," which means wisdom, and "philo," which means loving. So my method is in fact the proper manner of conducting philosophical enquiry.

[Gemini]

You just linked a popularizing article that uses the term free for the same reasons as anyone else does.  Flourish.  As for (2)...yes, by defining all of the "freedom" out of it.

These are researchers at John Hopkins and this is to be published in a special October edition of "Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics."

Which is a freedom nowhere in evidence.  What is in evidence is a vast mountain of observations to the contrary, cutting even at the heart of what you -want- in the first place.  

None of what you define as freedom. More from the article: "Classical compatibilism is often associated with the thesis that the word freedom in the expression freedom of will modifies a condition of action and not the agent’s will." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compat...rFreWilPro

I don't think a nest has a will either (if we're the standard of reference), but I don't think that what we have is too far off from what it has, and I expect to see thermostats with a will before I die.  

I will still stomp on it!

That would be a -less damning- comparison, specifically to your position...but better, idk why.  No one doubts the will of those folks, you know.  We just see it to be compromised.  They wanted to do it, that's why they did it.  It;s a point you;ll have to take up with the other "compatibilist" in thread, Benny, who has very literally defined free will as the ability to act in accordance with ones nature...etc etc tc.

The whole point is that nest thermometers are free from external impediments--which satisfies one of the conditions of free will, but they don't have a will, i.e., agency or intelligence. And that's why they don't have free will.

In any case, you think that some people are about as free as a nest thermo...but that you're different, do you?

Nope, I'm just as causally determined as a nest thermometer. That is the compatibilist position.

[The Grand Nudger]

These are researchers at John Hopkins and this is to be published in a special October edition of "Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics."

All well and good, but how is that a response to what -I- said rather than a vague and poorly formed appeal to perceived authority?  

None of what youdefine as freedom. More from the article: "Classical compatibilism is often associated with the thesis that the word freedom in the expression freedom of will modifies a condition of action and not the agent’s will." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#TerOneForFreWilPro

You definition of freedom doesn't require that it be free...so yes, naturally, I prefer my own which does.  Aren't you supposed to be the pedantic one between us?

I will still stomp on it!

So would I...hell, I'll stomp on things that do have a "free will".  Diod you know that you can;t legally shoot at a wounded enemy that's behind your line of control?  They're pows.  So, the way to deal with that, is a swift rear-and-downward kick to to the skull..which levarages all of your weight and muscle, to crush their heads and reduce the strain on rear echelon motherfuckers.  

The whole point is that nest thermometers are free from external impediments--which satisfies on the conditions of free will, but they don't have a will, i.e., agency or intelligence. And that's why they don't have free will.

-but also why your will is no more or less free than whatever they have.

Nope, I'm just as causally determined as a nest thermometer. That is the compatibilist position.

I know, which is why the compatibilist position is a semantic game of hide and seek, rather than a description of some ability or quality that human beings have. If the important bit of a "free will" was that it was a will, you'd not have balked at simply describing it as a -will-...but no, no...we have to call it "free"............

[Gemini]

All well and good, but how is that a response to what -I- said rather than a vague and poorly formed appeal to perceived authority?  

I think you know that referencing experts to support one's claims isn't an appeal to authority. And this was direct response to the skepticism you expressed in post #479 as to whether frontal lobes grant the property of human will.

You definition of freedom doesn't require that it be free...so yes, naturally, I prefer my own which does.  Aren't you supposed to be the pedantic one between us?

Pendantic enough to distinguish between the stipulative freedom of compatibilism and the contra-causal freedom of libertarianism. All you're saying is that our way of defining "free will" is different than the way libertarians define it. True, that. So what?

So would I...hell, I'll stomp on things that do have a "free will".  Diod you know that you can;t legally shoot at a wounded enemy that's behind your line of control?  They're pows.  So, the way to deal with that, is a swift rear-and-downward kick to to the skull..which levarages all of your weight and muscle, to crush their heads and reduce the strain on rear echelon motherfuckers.  

That's what legalism gets us. Kicking people to death instead of shooting them. Hooray for rules of engagement. War is hell, there's no denying it and no avoiding it, as long as someone out there is itching to wage one.

I know, which is why the compatibilist position is a semantic game of hide and seek, rather than a description of some ability or quality that human beings have.

Being free from duress/coercion is a real property that human beings can have. To define language in such way as to permit distinctions that obtain on a regular basis (having legal autonomy vs. not having legal autonomy) rather than defining freedom of the will in terms of something that is at best a speculative plausibility and at worst incoherent is hardly a semantic game of hide and seek. It's just good linguistics.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you know that referencing experts to support one's claims isn't an appeal to authority. And this was direct response to the skepticism you expressed in post #479 as to whether frontal lobes grant the property of human will.

You doin;t reference the experts -to establish your claim- you referencied a popularizing artcile that uses the same words, that was -about- people studying something that they do not, themselves, establish or even attempt to establish as "free" in any more than the colloquial sense.  

Pendantic enough to distinguish between the stipulative freedom of compatibilism and the contra-causal freedom of libertarianism. All you're saying is that our way of defining "free will" is different than the way libertarians define it. True, that. So what?

So what, indeed.  

That's what legalism gets us. Kicking people to death instead of shooting them. Hooray for rules of engagement. War is hell, there's no denying it and no avoiding it, as long as someone out there is itching to wage one.

Then maybe pointing to legalism (as you have) as an avenue for free will isn't such a good idea either? I wouldn;t make such an argument (as an argument to consequence) but obviously it resonates with you...  

Being free from duress/coercion is a real property that human beings can have. To define language in such way as to permit distinctions that obtain on a regular basis (having legal autonomy vs. not having legal autonomy) rather than defining freedom of the will in terms of something that is at best a speculative plausibility and at worst incoherent is hardly a semantic game of hide and seek. It's just good linguistics.

You -aren't- free from duress or coercion.  You are sometimes free from some kinds of duress or coercion...and that's being -incredibly- generous and not strictly factual. It's good linguistics, agreed, but bad logic. I'm not looking for a way to -say- we have free will...I can do that, it's trivially easy to do that...and I;m two hairs away from a chimpanzee. I'm looking for some -actual- free will.

[Gemini]

You doin;t reference the experts -to establish your claim- you referencied a popularizing artcile that uses the same words, that was -about- people studying something that they do not, themselves, establish or even attempt to establish as "free" in any more than the colloquial compatibilist sense.  

Fixed that for you

(And it was an article referencing data released in a peer-reviewed journal that supports my definition of human agency via functional frontal lobes).

Then maybe pointing to legalism (as you have) as an avenue for free will isn't such a good idea either? I wouldn;t make such an argument (as an argument to consequence) but obviously it resonates with you...  

That's another debate--whether the definition of autonomy I've given per contemporary jurisprudence is justified because it is ethical or merely because it is the law. I would argue it's the former. So I'm not arguing for legalism.

You -aren't- free from duress or coercion.  You are sometimes free from some kinds of duress or coercion...and that's being -incredibly- generous and not strictly factual.  It's good linguistics, agreed, but bad logic.  I'm not looking for a way to -say- we have free will...I can do that, it's trivially easy to do that...and I;m two hairs away from a chimpanzee.   I'm looking for some -actual- free will.

I am free from duress and coercion per the dictionary definition. Pedantic bitch, remember

[The Grand Nudger]

You doin;t reference the experts -to establish your claim- you referencied a popularizing artcile that uses the same words, that was -about- people studying something that they do not, themselves, establish or even attempt to establish as "free" in any more than the colloquial compatibilist sense.  

Fixed that for you

(And it was an article referencing data released in a peer-reviewed journal that supports my definition of human agency via functional frontal lobes).

If colloquialist and compatibilist free will are the same thing then why resist any criticism that it's nothing more than a semantic bait and switch?  

That's another debate--whether the definition of autonomy I've given per contemporary jurisprudence is justified because it is ethical or merely because it is the law. I would argue it's the former. So I'm not arguing for legalism.

Good, then bye bye frontal lobes...since that's the context in which you proposed them...and it didn't work anyway.

I am free from duress and coercion per the dictionary definition. Pedantic bitch, remember

No, you're not, I guess it's just a lapse of your pedantic side.  : shrugs :

[Gemini]

If colloquialist and compatibilist free will are the same thing then why resist any criticism that it's nothing more than a semantic bait and switch?  

Because the article supported the compatibilist and not the colloquial sense. You can show me where they referenced contra-causality if you like, but I'm pretty sure I didn't miss it.

Good, then bye bye frontal lobes...since that's the context in which you proposed them...and it didn't work anyway.

So would you treat someone with frontal lobe damage the same way as someone with an anti-social personality? Should people who lack a neural mechanism for controlling impulses be incarcerated with people who have a neural mechanism for controlling impulses which has devoloped in ways antagonistic to civilized society? This both an ethical and legal question.

No, you're not, I guess it's just a lapse of your pedantic side.  : shrugs :

Again: duress and coercion are not the same thing as deterministic causality. The deterministic outcome of the causal processes constituting my will aren't an external factor constraining me, as they would be per duress and coercion. The deterministic outcome of the causal processes constituting my will are identical to my will.

[Angrboda]

I know, which is why the compatibilist position is a semantic game of hide and seek, rather than a description of some ability or quality that human beings have.

Being free from duress/coercion is a real property that human beings can have. To define language in such way as to permit distinctions that obtain on a regular basis (having legal autonomy vs. not having legal autonomy) rather than defining freedom of the will in terms of something that is at best a speculative plausibility and at worst incoherent is hardly a semantic game of hide and seek. It's just good linguistics.

What is happening in the brain of someone with a gun pointed at them that is different from the same brain imagining its future state after choosing the chocolate cake? How is having a gun pointed at my head not just another decision to be made? I fail to see the distinction between the two decisions is anything more than an artifact of your definition. You could define free will as making decisions in the absence of Bobo the clown, simply making a definition doesn't imbue the situation with metaphysical properties it didn't have before the definition. If our will isn't free under 'duress' then it isn't free under ordinary thought processes either. You say that being free from duress/coercion is a real property that human beings can have. I'm not seeing the 'real' part of it in the brain. Just decisions. Gun, no gun. Cake, no cake. It's all the same in the brain.