Do you believe in free will?

[NoMoreFaith]

Playing the devil's advocate once again - if your position is that "if you understand all the factors, you CAN determine the next instant", you have already accepted a deterministic position. Any argument for a logically sound and yet causation-free free-will cannot follow from this premise.

Therefore. The ultimate therefore here...
You must show causation can be superseded to show free will.

Otherwise, we are simply saying the argument doesn't disprove magic because it starts with the assumption there is no magic.
I hold my hand up here, I assume no magic. But the onus of proof is always on "Magic".

You're getting a free ride that nobody has called you up on displaying a logical argument FOR free will, instead of trying to pick holes in (hard) determinism. Its not the same thing.

That is exactly what I said. In order to conclude that "the future is determined", you have already discarded free-will as a part of natural law and superceded it with determinism. To begin a discussion of free-will vs determinism with this position is asking your opponent to first accept all your premises and then show how his arguments follow from those.

You cannot supercede free will as part of natural law unless you prove it is part of natural law.
Why don't you say that we discard magic as part of natural law and supersede it with science.

Why don't you argue some scientific reasoning for free will, or is it just in the air word play with no reference to the real world?

(Just as a side note; It may appear aggressive as a comment, but I don't wish you to take it aggressively.)

Yes, free-will - as you have understood it is not real, since you have already assumed it to mean freedom from causation. To clarify once more - it has never been my position that free-will must be free from causation or find its source in something supernatural.

Your arguments make it appear so. So far, your views seem to be compatabilist, whilst mine have been strictly hard determinism.

Can you define, in one paragraph what "Free Will" means to you before we proceed any further.

In order for
That is - in fact - all that it is. And I never said that you said that there was anything separate. I say that you assume - "In order for free-will to exist, there must be something separate".

Then you need to start putting up some arguments how it can be compatible then.

That's because I accept them. I'm saying that posing a question about a supernatural interpretation of free-will, while ruling out the supernatural altogether is intellectually dishonest.

I have repeatedly said I do not rule it out, simply require evidence of its existence. Otherwise its unnecessary "woo".
Thats not a dismissal, but I do demand an argument for. All you've done is picked holes, and added statements which were contrary to the position presented.
Much like this one.

Between a dichotomized discussion of free-will vs determinism, it would be loading the discussion in either way to presume such an agent does or does not exist. That is my argument. Since you assumed one way in your stated presumptions, you loaded the argument in your favor.

Since, as it happens, I accept those presumptions as well, while not accepting your interpretation of free-will - I went ahead and answered your question, while pointing out your mistake.

It would be if you were referring to an argument instead of a statement OF my presumptions.

I do so, in order to reference the argument itself. I do so, so that flaws in the argument can be traced back to the assumptions made, so that if they themselves are inconsistent or in error, this can be shown.
Its called constructing a logical argument, not "loading" the question.

If the presumption of the article of arguments can be show to be true, and that a logical connection between those presumptions and the argument exists, this is proof of the argument.

Logical discussion relies on pointing out the fallacies inherent in the presentation of the argument.
What you're doing is saying the argument is loaded because I provided observable truths.

[genkaus]

He probably got that idea from your arguments to the effect of there somehow being a difference between causality as it applies to free will, and how it applies to everything else. You seem to be arguing for a special case without realizing it.

No special cases - only separate consideration. Causality does not and would not apply any differently to free-will than to everything else.

---

So, again, it is complexity? How does this complexity affect causality then? Worms brains are not "complex enough", human brains, though operating on an expanded worms brain, and under completely identical laws are. Would that be a fair appraisal of your position? Worms exhibit behaviors, as do plants, so, an effect is not good enough to qualify as "free will". Can we get less complex than a human brain and still have "free will"?

Yes, we can.

Complexity contributes to the functions the brain is capable of. Exercise of free-will is simply one of brain's functions that occurs above a certain level of complexity.

[The Grand Nudger]

NP, so, no special cases. The worms behaviors and the plants behaviours are very much slaves to determinism. Why not the free will of a human being then (if we have one)? No special cases right..just "special consideration"?

Will requires a brain
Some brains are better than others
Effects aren't good enough
No special cases

It's starting to look real nice around here.

(ah, also, lets pick a creature other than ourselves then, which, by your definition can be said to have free will, sometimes it helps to make things impersonal. This way you won't feel that I am somehow criticizing your personal free will, whatever it means to you, and whatever value you've placed upon it.)

[The Magic Pudding]

If we are composed of nothing other than matter then doesn't that mean all that we are as humans is a bunch of chemicals and particles being governed by physical laws?

Ye those laws are always at play.
Comforting isn't it?

Do we have no more control over ourselves then a rock does when falling down a hill, or a computer governed completely by our programming?

I don't entirely understand rockness, parts of me was once was rock but I've lost touch. It's my impression rocks just go with the flow, I don't know where this impression comes from.

It seems like that is the only option if materialism is true, however it just doesn't seem like that explanation fits in with the universal experience of free will. I mean if an object is dropped it must necessarily fall to the ground because of gravity. But there is no physical law that makes it necessary for me to post on this forum, it seems like I freely chose to do it myself.

It seems your sense is leaking through your seams.

[genkaus]

Therefore. The ultimate therefore here...
You must show causation can be superseded to show free will.

Incorrect. You must show causation can be superseded in order to show free-will that is free from causation. Since that has never been my argument, I must show nothing of the sort.

Otherwise, we are simply saying the argument doesn't disprove magic because it starts with the assumption there is no magic.
I hold my hand up here, I assume no magic. But the onus of proof is always on "Magic".

You're getting a free ride that nobody has called you up on displaying a logical argument FOR free will, instead of trying to pick holes in (hard) determinism. Its not the same thing.

I have provided arguments - non-magical, natural arguments for free-will.

You cannot supercede free will as part of natural law unless you prove it is part of natural law.
Why don't you say that we discard magic as part of natural law and supersede it with science.

Why don't you argue some scientific reasoning for free will, or is it just in the air word play with no reference to the real world?

(Just as a side note; It may appear aggressive as a comment, but I don't wish you to take it aggressively.)

I have. It is just not free-will as you understand it.

Your arguments make it appear so. So far, your views seem to be compatabilist, whilst mine have been strictly hard determinism.

Can you define, in one paragraph what "Free Will" means to you before we proceed any further.

I dislike compatibilism since it fails to address the assumed supernatural component to free-will and in the process, assumes it as well.

By free-will, I mean the capacity of an agent to choose from a set of alternatives free from some constraints (external to himself).

Then you need to start putting up some arguments how it can be compatible then.

I have. You haven't addressed them.

I have repeatedly said I do not rule it out, simply require evidence of its existence. Otherwise its unnecessary "woo".
Thats not a dismissal, but I do demand an argument for. All you've done is picked holes, and added statements which were contrary to the position presented.
Much like this one.

Well, I do rule out the free-will as free from causation. Since that has never been my position, I'm not required to provide any evidence for it.

It would be if you were referring to an argument instead of a statement OF my presumptions.

I do so, in order to reference the argument itself. I do so, so that flaws in the argument can be traced back to the assumptions made, so that if they themselves are inconsistent or in error, this can be shown.
Its called constructing a logical argument, not "loading" the question.

If the presumption of the article of arguments can be show to be true, and that a logical connection between those presumptions and the argument exists, this is proof of the argument.

Logical discussion relies on pointing out the fallacies inherent in the presentation of the argument.
What you're doing is saying the argument is loaded because I provided observable truths.

What you fail to understand is that the question was not loaded against me, it was loaded against any proponent of free-will as you understand it. If it had been loaded against me, I would not have answered the question - which I did.

Now, as to the assumptions you made - I do not contest them as factual, because I accept them as facts as well. But any proponent of free-will free of causality would not presume that the "future is predetermined" to be factual and therefore would consider your question to be loaded.

[The Grand Nudger]

So then, a deterministic, not-so-free, or even truly free at all "free will". Sounds like we're in perfect agreement. Our behavior is more complex than the worm or the flower, but no more "free" except by redefinition of "free" as "complex". Correct?

[genkaus]

NP, so, no special cases. The worms behaviors and the plants behaviours are very much slaves to determinism. Why not the free will of a human being then (if we have one)? No special cases right..just "special consideration"?

Our behavior and actions are not free from causality either.

Will requires a brain
Some brains are better than others
Effects aren't good enough
No special cases

It's starting to look real nice around here.

(ah, also, lets pick a creature other than ourselves then, which, by your definition can be said to have free will, sometimes it helps to make things impersonal. This way you won't feel that I am somehow criticizing your personal free will, whatever it means to you, and whatever value you've placed upon it.)

I gave a list.

---

So then, a deterministic, not-so-free, or even truly free at all "free will". Sounds like we're in perfect agreement. Our behavior is more complex than the worm or the flower, but no more "free" except by redefinition of "free" as "complex". Correct?

No, free as in "free from external stimuli by the virtue of having a sense of self". If the worm had that sense, I would consider it to have free will as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

Having trouble finding it, any notable that you like and know a fair amount about, pick your fav? How does having a sense of self make something free from external stimuli btw? Sounds like an assumption to me, and a fuzzy one at that. Also, if internal stimuli are similarly bound by causality/determinism (such as neurological activity and biochemistry)...then what is the difference as far as free will is concerned between external and internal stimuli, other than the obvious? Why does it deserve "special consideration"? Are you in control of your internal stimuli, or is it in control of you (to put it more precisely, would it be fair to say that the sum of external and internal stimuli produce an effect which you call "I", and if so, precisely how could you be said to have control of this "I")?

Do you have a will, or are you a will?

[genkaus]

Having trouble finding it, any notable that you like and know a fair amount about, pick your fav?

You mean the list? Its in post no. #199

[Whateverist]

Therefore. The ultimate therefore here...
You must show causation can be superseded to show free will.

Otherwise, we are simply saying the argument doesn't disprove magic because it starts with the assumption there is no magic.
I hold my hand up here, I assume no magic. But the onus of proof is always on "Magic".

You only need to show free will exists if you reject the evidence of your own experience. Magic always seems to come down to sleight of hand and misdirection. You say our apparent experience of free will is an illusion. Perhaps you like to explain how that is done exactly.

I agree with Genkaus that it is time to decide exactly what we mean by "free will". Because in addition to the archaic version we use it in mundane useful ways in the courtroom to determine competence and to describe levels of childhood development.

I'm always struck when proponents of determinism ask for a display of free will that they have just given it themselves or else what they claim to have reasoned to is in some sense just a hardwired belief.

Thank you gentlemen for an interesting discussion and for once again providing me with an excuse for a last minute rush to work.