Free Will

[Panatheist]

What would it even mean for the will to be free?

It means that the intent of a sentient agent can be manifested in the world without either compulsion or obstruction from outside the agent.

I do think the self as an agent and observer somewhere inside me is an illusion, that it is not what it seems.

I have no idea how acts of the organism could be free of outside compulsion. It seems if they were they would be entirely random.

I've never been convinced contracausal free will is coherent or even worth having.

[Yoo]

It would take a long time to unpack all of the tiny logical mis-steps above.  So I'll cut to the heart of it.  You can;t think of any function for qualia.  It doesn't seem..to you, like it's an advantageous thing to possess?

Look around you, a world -run- by creatures with qualia.  All we ever talk about is our qualia.  We use that qualia to make inferences about the world and use those inferences to subjugate it.....our qualia form both the context for production and appreciation of art and our human languages... but you can't imagine a -single- function......for qualia?  Can you not imagine a function for a picture of an arrow, or a technical schematic for an orbital launch system?  Can you not imagine the function of an interactive live map of the african savannah...including which lions are or may be hiding under which clumps of grass?  Can you not imagine the function of a visceral experience of family unity and happiness?  Can you not imagine the function of a compelling feeling of satisfaction with chocolate?

Maybe cut to the right heart next time  I said this: " I also can't think of any possible function they might fulfil, that wouldn't be already fulfilled by the machinery in the brain that caused them."
Every function you just mentioned, comes ultimately from the brain. Why add the qualia? That was my question.

[bennyboy]

I get it.  You are talking about determinism.

What's the point of consciousness, by which I mean the ability to actually experience qualia, then?  If it's all just brain "doing stuff," then what's the point of having an agent around to serve only as a sideline observer?  Why have the illusion of free will at all?  That's a pretty curious byproduct, I'd say.

Not really.  Hit ctrl/alt/delete.  Whats the point of that screen in front of you...it's not like it helps the system to "do stuff".  It would "do stuff" without that screen.   Utilities exist...because they have utility.  

Do you actually have the "illusion" of free will...or do you just have the experience of will?  I know that in my case, it's only the latter.  I can generally identify  moments when my will is constrained...and when I can;t...I really don;t know why it is what is is.  To claim that I experience it to be free would be claiming one thing too many.   

Freedom isn't a magical unicorn. If it's a word to have meaning, it has to be meaningful. I say freedom means unobstructed and uncompelled, and since we're talking about the experience of agency, I'd even go so far as to say the FEELING of being unobstructed or uncompelled IS being unobstructed or uncompelled. For all I know, I'm a brain in a jar. But until that stops me from having the experience of buying and enjoying my ice cream of choice, it matters not at all to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

It would take a long time to unpack all of the tiny logical mis-steps above.  So I'll cut to the heart of it.  You can;t think of any function for qualia.  It doesn't seem..to you, like it's an advantageous thing to possess?

Look around you, a world -run- by creatures with qualia.  All we ever talk about is our qualia.  We use that qualia to make inferences about the world and use those inferences to subjugate it.....our qualia form both the context for production and appreciation of art and our human languages... but you can't imagine a -single- function......for qualia?  Can you not imagine a function for a picture of an arrow, or a technical schematic for an orbital launch system?  Can you not imagine the function of an interactive live map of the african savannah...including which lions are or may be hiding under which clumps of grass?  Can you not imagine the function of a visceral experience of family unity and happiness?  Can you not imagine the function of a compelling feeling of satisfaction with chocolate?

Maybe cut to the right heart next time  I said this: " I also can't think of any possible function they might fulfil, that wouldn't be already fulfilled by the machinery in the brain that caused them."
Every function you just mentioned, comes ultimately from the brain. Why add the qualia? That was my question.

-as does qualia......but, cut that out, if you wish to refer to the machinery as a separate thing.... then lets do that.

Seen any machines enjoy a candy bar lately?  Ever seen a machine give a girl a box of chocolates to get in her pants?  Have you ever seen a machine form an emoptinal bond with a family so strong that it would lay down it's own life for them?  When's the last time a machine invented a moon lander?  Did machines evolve from a vulnerable species with a need to know whether or not something out there would eat them..did machines evolve with a necessarry aversion to being eaten?  When's the last time a machine invented a language or painted a work of art?

The machinery of the brain -does- do all of these things... qualia is -also- the machinery of the brain. Might there be some other way to do them, or some other machine that could do them. Maybe, not yet, not here anyway. This is how we do them. These are their many functions.

[bennyboy]

It means that the intent of a sentient agent can be manifested in the world without either compulsion or obstruction from outside the agent.

I do think the self as an agent and observer somewhere inside me is an illusion, that it is not what it seems.

I have no idea how acts of the organism could be free of outside compulsion.  It seems if they were they would be entirely random.

I've never been convinced contracausal free will is coherent or even worth having.

Okay, so who's typing, and why?  Mine is that you are typing because you have an interest.  Others will say that a determinist chain extending back perhaps to the Big Bang has led to a very particular set of circumstances in which the brain in the way it processes sends a body to a computer and types stuff.

My version is simpler, and in my opinion better.

[The Grand Nudger]

Freedom isn't a magical unicorn.  If it's a word to have meaning, it has to be meaningful.  I say freedom means unobstructed and uncompelled,

-and gl showing that your will has any of that.

and since we're talking about the experience of agency,I'd even go so far as to say the FEELING of being unobstructed or uncompelled IS being unobstructed or uncompelled.  

Again.,.I don;t feel unobstructed or uncompelled when I will things....and I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that feeling that way..if I did..meant I was that way.  After all..a cold iron can feel hot, eh?  Not knowing why you did something, and doing something freely aren't the same thing.  

For all I know, I'm a brain in a jar.  But until that stops me from having the experience of buying and enjoying my ice cream of choice, it matters not at all to me.

Does a lack of "freedom" stop you from enjoying your ice cream of choice?  It's hard to see how...and so it's difficult to see the relevance.

[Yoo]

Maybe cut to the right heart next time  I said this: " I also can't think of any possible function they might fulfil, that wouldn't be already fulfilled by the machinery in the brain that caused them."
Every function you just mentioned, comes ultimately from the brain. Why add the qualia? That was my question.

-as does qualia......but, cut that out, if you wish to refer to the machinery as a separate thing.... then lets do that.

Seen any machines enjoy a candy bar lately?  Ever seen a machine give a girl a box of chocolates to get in her pants?  Have you ever seen a machine form an emoptinal bond with a family so strong that it would lay down it's own life for them?  When's the last time a machine invented a moon lander?  Did machines evolve from a vulnerable species with a need to know whether or not something out there would eat them..did machines evolve with a necessarry aversion to being eaten?  When's the last time a machine invented a language or painted a work of art?

The machinery of the brain -does- do all of these things... qualia is -also- the machinery of the brain.  Might there be some other way to do them, or some other machine that could do them.  Maybe, not yet, not here anyway.  This is how we do them.  These are their many functions.

First of all, I was talking about a function in the evolutionary sense. So painting a work of art or inventing a moon lander isn't precisely what I was thinking of, hehe. 
Secondly, I've never understood how people could make sense of the idea that qualia are, literally, brain activity. "They don't come from brain activity, they are brain activity." That has never made sense to me. Could you explain it?

[The Grand Nudger]

First of all, I was talking about a function in the evolutionary sense. So painting a work of art or inventing a moon lander isn't precisely what I was thinking of, hehe. 

Yes it was.  Painting a work of art and inventing moon landers -are- evolutionary functions.  What do you think makes us such badasses, evolutionarily?

Secondly, I've never understood how people could make sense of the idea that qualia are, literally, brain activity. "They don't come from brain activity, they are brain activity." That has never made sense to me. Could you explain it?

Sure.  In the same way that computation -is- the state of the gate assembly...qualia -is- the state of the neural correlate. Neither are some separate substance or thing, they are descriptions -of- that thing.

[Yoo]

First of all, I was talking about a function in the evolutionary sense. So painting a work of art or inventing a moon lander isn't precisely what I was thinking of, hehe. 

Yes it was.  Painting a work of art and inmventing moon landers -are- evolutionary functions.  What do you think makes us such badasses, evolutionarily?

Secondly, I've never understood how people could make sense of the idea that qualia are, literally, brain activity. "They don't come from brain activity, they are brain activity." That has never made sense to me. Could you explain it?

Sure.  In the same way that computation -is- the state of the gate assembly...qualia -is- the state of the neural correlate.  Neither are some separate substance or thing, they are descriptions -of- that thing.

You say qualia are brain functions. So there is this function happening in the brain, looking at it from third pserson perspective. Also, there are qualia happening from a first person perspective at the same time. Would you say the function happening in the brain wouldn't work if there weren't qualia from a first person perspective?

[The Grand Nudger]

You say qualia are brain functions. So there is this function happening in the brain, looking at it from third pserson perspective.

That would be innaccurate, you aren't looking at your brain functions from a third person perspective..are you?  You don't see synapses firing from top down view, right?  You see colors and shapes, you feel love. Predictable, since you don;t have eyes in your head, pointed at you brain, to observe their functions...nor could eyes -see- those functions if you did.

Also, there are qualia happening from a first person perspective at the same time. Would you say the function happening in the brain wouldn't work if there weren't qualia from a first person perspective?

The qualia are all "happening" from the same place and from no perspective.  Perspective is a simulation based upon inputs. Your eyes work like a camera, helping you to build a model that can be from any perspective you have sufficient (or can manufacture sufficient) mapping for. You can thusly see a sphere in the first person, or you can "see" yourself looking at a sphere in the third person. That we mostly have first person experiences is probabl;y more to do with the locality of our sensory apparatus than anything else. There's a crushing weight of "first person" input, and relatively less third person models of anything. Obviously it;s not a requirement of operation that it be first person..or else we wouldn't have that third person ability. Your brain accepts input from your brain just as readily as it accepts input from your eyes.