Starboy

Hi Devilnaut,

Thanks for granting my point that there exists a random heads and tails generator in nature. This is an important point.

I see that you disagree with the definition of free will as presented. What definition is acceptable to you? While you are at it could you define choice? If we can't agree on an acceptable definition will a common definition be acceptable? There is a possibility that our differences are purely semantical.

Starboy

Starboy

Theli, what is your definition of determinism?

Zadok001

Theli, I'm afraid I really don't understand your objection. The claims about Free Will I made in the other thread have no connection to the concept of the 'self,' other than in a purely physical sense (i.e., I assume a 'self' cannot affect something if it hasn't come into being yet). It doesn't matter whether that self is internal, external, whatever - If you aren't in existance, you can't very well make a decision, now can you?

Starboy:

The existance of a random heads-tails generator in nature is questionable. Things we previously thought to be random, like the sex of a child, have now been conclusively shown to be caused (by the coding of the egg, neh?). Even probabilistic quantum mechanics may be causal, related to things we simply cannot observe yet. It's entirely possible that everything is causal, which negates one-half of the argument in the other thread. (It doesn't really matter, since the other half happily takes up all the slack. )

Synaesthesia:

If free will is our choices in *responding* to an outside environment, then our choices are *caused* by that outside environment. We make different choices in snow than in sun. What caused the weather to be just the way it is?

Ok, here's a new argument for everyone here. Let's try this out. (I've no idea if it will work.)

1. Every choice a human makes is based on a cause. (If it's not, it has to be random, and go look at the other damn thread. )

2. That cause is either internal or external in nature.

3a. If that cause is external, then the individual has no control over it.

3b. If that cause is internal, then that internal cause or stimulus is caused as well. (Or random, ad infinitum.)

4b. Eventually, this train of internal stimulus will lead to a cause that is either external or random.

5. You can figure it out from here.

Does that dissuade some of the objectors? Or am I misreading this whole little pow-wow?

Theli

Starboy...
Basicly, every event has a cause and can be traced back to it. Including thoughts.
Let me ask you this, what is free will? and can a choice be uncaused?


Zadok001...
First off, I didn't accuse you of anything. I just took your claim as an example.
Secondly, how can you have a discussion about free will that doesn't concern the self?
Are you saying that the topic of free will is all about physics?

Was this sentence really directed towards me? I would think that if we wanted to discuss the possible free will of a person, we should assume that he exists. You seem to be distracting attention from the issue here.
These are your exact words:
Did you refer to X as an event prior to the individuals birth? If so, then it's not a philosophic question anymore. Just simple logic.
If you meant while the individual lives, and inside his grasp then I disagree based on the reasons I gave you.


Ok, let's try again.
[quote]1. Every choice a human makes is based on a cause. (If it's not, it has to be random, and go look at the other damn thread. )

Yes.

False. All choices must be internal, and most are also external.

Impossible scenario. A person cannot make a choice and not be part of the decisionmakingprocess.

True.

Yes.

No, I cannot.
Are you saying that a choice must be uncaused, undetermined or even independent of prior causes for free will to exist?

Back to my initial question: What would REAL free will be if it existed?

The whole reason of this thread is that I oppose the claim that we do not have free will because of determinism.

Amos

Real free will is to make your heart stop on command. After this determinsm will cause us to respond. But that is not what the free will argument is all about and that is not what determinsm is about.

Starboy

Theli, it would appear that you understand there to be only one kind of determinism, classical determinism, one cause results in only one possible outcome. There is more than one kind of determinism, how about one cause can result in several possible outcomes each with a computable probability. In such a universe it is possible to construct a random heads and tails generator.

Starboy

Zadok001

Theli, I didn't mean to insult you at all - I really WASN'T clear on what you were saying. I hope I didn't upset you at all, I'm trying to come at this purely rationally.

What I am saying is that free will DOES come down to physics, yes. Whenever you make a choice, you are reacting to certain things, internal and external. They're ALL physical - The environment is physical. The electrical impulses moving through your grey tissue are physical. It's all physical. And every physical event has one of two states: Caused and uncaused. Thus, the argument from causality.

The argument eventually leads us to an event that occurred prior to a person's creation, and therefore an event he or she couldn't have affected. Said event leads causally to the decision that person makes during their life.

You said, regarding my conclusion:

"Did you refer to X as an event prior to the individuals birth? If so, then it's not a philosophic question anymore. Just simple logic.
If you meant while the individual lives, and inside his grasp then I disagree based on the reasons I gave you."

The thing is, an event that occurs DURING someone's life is causally related to something that happened prior to someone's life.

Take an event. Cyril, a bulldog, is walking through a maze. Cyril reaches a T-junction, and sits down to think about which way to go. After a while, he decides to go left.

My hypothesis is that Cyril had no 'real' control over that choice. He went left because either he was caused to go left by forces beyond his control, or it was a random decision. Either way, he couldn't rationally affect the outcome.

(Cyril can be a person, too, but bulldogs are cuter.)

The decision can even be a rational one! Cyril STILL has no free will regarding it. Let's say Cyril smells bacon coming from the left passage, and rationally decides he wants bacon, thus his choice. Well, this is a caused event! Cyril, as per Hume's argument from perception, must have previously smelled bacon and now associates the smell of bacon with yummy food. Thus, when Cyril smells bacon, he wants some. Causality confirmed, despite rational reasoning. Now, that bacon was the result of something else - In this case, someone cooking bacon and giving it to Cyril. That person's decision was also affected by outside events. Presumably, he was hungry. Why was he hungry? Repeat ad nauseum. Eventually, we hit a cause that came before Cyril's conception, and we're in the clear to claim Cyril's decision wasn't free.

I can see this response now: But Cyril can choose to walk away from the bacon! Well... Yes. And if he choose to, he'd have a reason for doing so. Perhaps Cyril was conditioned to expect an electric shock when he got near bacon. Perhaps Cyril just had a big lunch of caviar. Doesn't matter, it's all causal to Cyril not wanting bacon, and therefore not going after it.

Without the smell of bacon, and without any causes, we have randomness: The inherent lack of rationality. And we're in the clear again.

Where's the problem with that? Rationality and internal decision making can't defend against this approach.

Theli

I haven't heard of that 'version'. Does it have a specific name, so I can look it up?

Theli

Zadok001...

I see your point with the choices being governed by previous causes, but what seems strange to me is saying that the bulldog has no free will, when the the term "free will" is lacking meaning.
It comes down to definition, how would you define "free will"?
If the term itself is a contradiction then how can you use it to describe something? even by saying the bulldog lacks it?

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I can slow my heart rate, or speed it up, on demand.

That may not be 'free' will, but is it--at least--a significant savings?

Keith.