Kharakov

Where do you think we should draw the line? (everyone)

10^6 inputs? 10^9 inputs? For humans we would have to consider all of the past inputs (don't know if you want to consider our ancestors developing language, art, science...) which could add up to 10^50 or higher inputs (total guess) determining every human decision.

Every 'simple' choice a human makes (vanilla or chocolate) has many inputs. How many inputs are required for a choice to be considered free?

Theli

It seems that the more we discuss "choice" the cleared it becomes that the term doesn't have any philosophical integrity, we can't define it properly.


Kharakov...
I wasn't refering to inputs, obviously we can't judge a choice based on ALL it's causes.
I was more into the complex process of the brain (or whatever makes the choice). I'm aware that it's fussy, but if this term is going to have any meaning it would need some definition.
Or we can just aswell walk around blaming rocks for lying on the wrong side of the road. Or yelling at the stupid clouds for not moving fast enough.

Thomas Ash

That's exactly right - like you said, you don't necessarily need to have awareness to make a choice, so long as the choice is still going on partly inside 'you', rather than being totally forced on you by an external force, like the gravity acting on the rock or the dagger acting on the person to cause them to die (their brain isn't involved.) Continued below...

The compatibilist definition of free will is basically that the (determined) choices are going on at least partly inside you, and are not totally forced on you by an external force like the gravity acting on the rock or the dagger acting on the person. But, by this definition, the alarm clock really does have free will, stupid as that sounds.
It just goes to show, like Theli said, that free will as most people mean it is a bit of an odd concept.

K

Thomas, I'm sure you would say, "yes" (and I would agree at least in that they have as much free will as anybody else), but I'm curious as to what others who advocate free will would say.

Do severely insane people have free will? How about those heavily under the influence of mind altering chemicals? How about someone with a gun pointed to their head being commanded to do something? Or a person who is dreaming? If not, why not?

Devilnaut

With a freewill compatibilist hat on, I'd say that it's purely a matter of degree, meaning that there's no strict cut-off between what is "free" will and what is not. I would suggest that, with all of the forces operating on an individual's decision considered, the more of these forces that are internal, the freer their will.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Kharakov

What do you consider internal?

maybe-

past experience (to compare to the current situation (both consciously and subconsciously))
instinctual motivation (want food, sex, pleasure, bright flashy lights, soft warm stuff.../avoid pain, death, loss of ability...)

Theli

May I try?

Pre-action-process inside the brain. This would mean that the more you think about a choice, the more free it gets. Might be usefull.

Beoran

I knew that something good would come from this thread. Great find, Theli! ^_^

Kharakov

So even if your desires are predetermined (want sex/food/entertainment/power to get what you want) the fact that you evaluate these desires internally makes the choice more free?

I propose that the strongest 'internal desire or combination of desires' will win out every time in the internal decision making process (assuming a healthy brain).

Does the proposition that longer deliberation makes a choice more free mean that if desires are more evenly matched (internally) the desires are more free?

What about all of the weaker desires that are not satisfied because they are overruled?

I am of the opinion that choices that are made without long deliberation have the sensation of being 'more free' (less desires opposed to the decision).

Theli

Kharakov...
I think it's necessary to seperate freedom of choice and freedom of will.
If a choice is free, it should be a product of the brain, and not a direct product of any external sourse.

Short and quick choices might be closer to the persons actual desires, yes. But they might also be hasty. The point I was trying to convey was that a longer choice is more of a product of the person making it than of other factors (like outside persuasion, or instinct/reaction).

I think that ability to weight desires against each other makes the will more free, yes.
If a smoker trying to quit just throws himself at a pack of cigarettes without considering the known consequences, his will cannot be very free.
This ofcourse has a backside, if the decision of considering smoking harmfull was induced by another person (by threat or persuasion), the free'st will would be demonstrated by lighting up.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>