free will

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 712
Topic's author
#481
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not very interested in the phenomenon that bru calls free will.  The free will I am interested in is concerned with the role of self.   I want my actions and choices to be determined, not random!  Specifically, I want my choices and actions to be determined by my desires or preferences.
I am not worried that I 'can't choose my preferences' - it is imo more significant that I do have prefernces and can choose to act on them - because leaves in the wind can't do either.   
I get why I am like a leaf blowing in wind - but how I different is more interesting!
#482
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I am not very interested in the phenomenon that bru calls free will.  The free will I am interested in is concerned with the role of self.   I want my actions and choices to be determined, not random!  Specifically, I want my choices and actions to be determined by my desires or preferences.
I am not worried that I 'can't choose my preferences' - it is imo more significant that I do have prefernces and can choose to act on them - because leaves in the wind can't do either.   

I get why I am like a leaf blowing in wind - but how I different is more interesting!
So, in other words, freewill is an emotion.  A comforting fiction.  The term for that is "compatibilism".
Topic's author
#483
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
I wonder why you said 'comforting'!
It's not quite a fiction because I can ask questions such as what is the  minimal set-up that can support free will.  Dry leaves do not manifest free will, humans do.
Is the self a fiction or the one thing we can be certain about as Descartes held?
#484
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I wonder why you said 'comforting'!
Freewill is comforting primarily because it is familiar and appears to be a lynch pin of the morality hypothesis.

It's not quite a fiction because I can ask questions such as what is the  minimal set-up that can support free will. 
You might as well ask questions such as what is the minimal set-up that can support a soul.

You might as well ask questions such as what would Sherlock Holmes do in this situation.

Your ability to entertain a hypothesis with questions has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on its status as a fiction.

Dry leaves do not manifest free will, humans do.
More specifically, only humans report feeling the emotion associated with freewill.

Also, only humans report feeling the emotion associated with having a soul.

Is the self a fiction or the one thing we can be certain about as Descartes held?
Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum. 

This very narrowly asserts that your identifiable thoughts indisputably verify the existence of some source.

It does not mean, as many seem to take it, at face value, that your naive "self-image" (human body and brain) itself is "indisputable".

The ultimate source of and underlying scope of your identifiable thoughts is beyond epistemological limits (noumenon).
Topic's author
#485
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
Is that what you find comforting about free will, or is it just the rest of us who find it comforting?
As I see it, the puzzle of free will is not really seperable from the puzzles of consciousness and self.  
Which is not a useful thing to say. I admit.   But I hope no-one expected a solution!
#486
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Is that what you find comforting about free will, or is it just the rest of us who find it comforting?
Please present your alternative hypothesis. 

As I see it, the puzzle of free will is not really seperable from the puzzles of consciousness and self.  
Consciousness and (a sense of) self are also Qualitative, personal, experiential fictions.

These are clearly distinguishable from scientifically Quantifiable facts.

Which is not a useful thing to say. I admit.   But I hope no-one expected a solution!
I always appreciate your candor.

#487
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The fact that you experience the ability to choose is an evidence.

That is not an evidenced that can be dismissed simply through mental gymnastics.


Also, you are the one asserting that choice is uncaused. Obviously, I don't believe that chouce is uncaused, because I believe God is the uncaused cause of everything.


#488
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
As I said, this debate is absurd. I do think that your bias is what is causing you to dismiss evidence as non-existent. 
#489
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
The fact that you experience the ability to choose is an evidence.
A spider has the ability to choose, do you believe spiders have freewill?

That is not an evidenced that can be dismissed simply through mental gymnastics.
It is a tautological fact that all actions and events are (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused (OR) some combination of the two.

Caused events are incompatible with freewill.

Uncaused events are incompatible with freewill.

Freewill can be neither caused or uncaused or any combination of the two.

There is NO POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE 3RD OPTION.

Also, you are the one asserting that choice is uncaused. Obviously, I don't believe that chouce is uncaused, because I believe God is the uncaused cause of everything.
ARE GODS CHOICES CAUSED OR UNCAUSED OR SOME COMBINATION OF THE TWO?

MOVING THE GOALPOSTS TO GOD DOES NOT FIX FREEWILLS INCOHERENCE.

AND IT MAKES HUMANS GOD PUPPETS.

GOD DOES NOT HAVE FREEWILL.
#490
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
As I said, this debate is absurd. I do think that your bias is what is causing you to dismiss evidence as non-existent. 
I do have a very strong bias in favor of logical coherence.
#491
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL


Caused events are incompatible with freewill.

Uncaused events are incompatible with freewill.

Freewill can be neither caused or uncaused or any combination of the two.

This is nonsense.
Topic's author
#492
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
@3RU7AL
I don't think caused/uncaused is what matters.  What matters is whether the cause of the choice is 'self' or 'non-self'.  
#493
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I don't think caused/uncaused is what matters.  What matters is whether the cause of the choice is 'self' or 'non-self'.  
The problem remains exactly the same.

Is your "self" caused (OR) uncaused?
#494
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
3ru7al is defining free will in such a way as to be impossible. At the same time is not talking about a free will that anyone believes in.


He is taking "freewill" in a far too literal sense. Then he mocks the idea by asking if spiders have free will(which truly is irrelevant). 

All of this is very dehumanizing really.

Certainly, you can use your free will to bind yourself to all manner of causal influences. You can also use your free will to bind yourself to other causal influences.

But hey, if someone wants to believe that they have no other choice than to be who they are, I would say that this is in fact their choice to make. They don't have to be trapped. And if they want to say that me telling them this is what caused them to make different choices, I will throw my arms up in the air and say what I have been this whole time...

This debate is absurd.



#495
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Caused events are incompatible with freewill.

Uncaused events are incompatible with freewill.

Freewill can be neither caused or uncaused or any combination of the two.
This is nonsense.
Caused events and actions are not FREE because they are wholly determined by their collection of causes.

UnCaused events and actions are not WILLED because they are necessarily indistinguishable from random.

(IFF) god is the "hidden variable" (THEN) humans are god puppets.
#496
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL

He is taking "freewill" in a far too literal sense. 

And I am pretty sure I said earlier in the topic that I did not feel that "free will" is really an accurate translation of this concept.

Topic's author
#497
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
If it is caused it is not free and if uncaused it is not willed.
Given the attention free will has received from philosophers, you'd have thought there was more to it...

#498
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
3ru7al is defining free will in such a way as to be impossible.
I didn't invent this definition.  Please provide your ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION.

At the same time is not talking about a free will that anyone believes in.
Tons of people believe that their decisions are divorced from the causal chain (by freewill) and this fact allows them to be morally culpable for their decisions.

Don't you also believe this?

He is taking "freewill" in a far too literal sense. Then he mocks the idea by asking if spiders have free will(which truly is irrelevant). 
You continue to conflate "choice" and "freewill".  Spiders can make choices, DO YOU BELIEVE SPIDERS HAVE FREEWILL?

Please answer "Yes" or "No".

All of this is very dehumanizing really.
Science and logic are "dehumanizing".  This is a naked appeal to emotion.

Certainly, you can use your free will to bind yourself to all manner of causal influences. You can also use your free will to bind yourself to other causal influences.
How can freewill violate causal influences without being itself UNCAUSED?

But hey, if someone wants to believe that they have no other choice than to be who they are, I would say that this is in fact their choice to make.
There is no logical alternative to indeterminism.

They don't have to be trapped. And if they want to say that me telling them this is what caused them to make different choices, I will throw my arms up in the air and say what I have been this whole time...This debate is absurd.
It's only absurd because you have no coherent definition of your version of freewill.
#499
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
Modern and even late medieval western philosophy evolved out of bad theology. It is mostly garbage. 

But that is like, just my opinionated observation. I'm sure there are some golden nuggets in there somewhere.




#500
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
You continue to conflate "choice" and "freewill".  Spiders can make choices, DO YOU BELIEVE SPIDERS HAVE FREEWILL?

Please answer "Yes" or "No".

MAYBE


And that really sums it up.




#501
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
If it is caused it is not free and if uncaused it is not willed.
Given the attention free will has received from philosophers, you'd have thought there was more to it...
Don't take my word for it...

Notice that Cicero's argument already appears in the form of a logical proposition, one or the other of determinism or randomness must be true. He claims that Epicurus must be denying such logical disjunctions. [LINK]
#502
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
You continue to conflate "choice" and "freewill".  Spiders can make choices, DO YOU BELIEVE SPIDERS HAVE FREEWILL?

Please answer "Yes" or "No".
MAYBE

And that really sums it up.
How can you be certain that humans have freewill but you are unable to determine if spiders have it?

Spiders can make choices.

You've repeatedly stated that humans make choices and this PROOVES freewill is fact.
#503
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Because free will is choice.

That is actually what it means.


You yourself confess free will.


#504
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Because free will is choice.
That is actually what it means.
You yourself confess free will.
(IFF) freewill = choice (THEN) spiders have freewill.
#505
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Is this supposed to be an argument for something?

#506
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Is this supposed to be an argument for something?
(IFF) freewill = choice (THEN) robotic sorting systems have freewill.
#507
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) freewill = choice (THEN) robotic sorting systems have what appears to be similar to freewill.

Fixed it.
#508
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
(IFF) freewill = choice (THEN) robotic sorting systems have what is indistinguishable from freewill.

Fixed it.
#509
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) freewill = choice (THEN) robotic sorting systems have what is indistinguishable from freewill.
That is true only if you consider the final result. It is false If you consider the other variables that human brains have at their disposal such as emotions.
#510
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
That is true only if you consider the final result. It is false If you consider the other variables that human brains have at their disposal such as emotions.
You need to define freewill as something distinguishable from simple "choice" if you want to make your stipulation coherent.

Is a freewill choice necessarily an emotional choice?  Is freewill proportional to emotion?  Do more emotional people have more freewill?