King's Indian

Hi, Torben!

As you may gather, I've been trying to apply your points (among others) elsewhere, and very useful it's been too. Sorry I've taken so long in replying, though.

A few thoughts:Yes, true. But we don't gain any more insight by considering the action of gravity solely on the atomic level of large-scale objects. Just a point concerning practicality, really. Or “reducibility”. You might have already seen this, but just in case: my crude use of Google. Not that all citations are relevant. Look hard enough, and you will even see quantum events applied to Wicca. I wouldn't dare. Wandering away from our point, it's fun when theoretical physicists do though, to take the example of Einstein applying E=hf to all atoms, rather than a mathematical subdivision of total energy; or even Paul Dirac, whose four separate wave functions to describe electrons implied the existence of anti-matter*. Repeat no more: I'm being brought round to your point of view.

Take care,
KI.

* Both examples taken from "It Must Be Beautiful: Great equations of modern science", ed. Graham Farmelo.

Treacle Worshipper

It seems to me that for will to be truly free it would have to have no prior cause, internal or external. These causes come from the natural universe.

I don't think this is the same as saying that free will is only possible if you have unlimited choice.

You can have limited choice, but to choose freely, you must be able to evaluate the options that are available to you in a completely unbiased manner, in order to choose the action that is best for you.

To be able to choose in an unbiased manner, we would need to be separate from both internal and external influences. This would mean that a part of us is outside those influences. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence for such a part. (Something which is integral to humanity but separated from the rest of nature & therefore uninfluenced by it.)

Therefore, because no part of us is free from the influence of the natural universe, we cannot be said to have free will.

I don't think it's possible to have free will within the natural universe, because everything we do within those parameters has a prior influence, whether we react in a certain way because we were bullied as a child or ate curry last night. If there is a part of us that is uninfluenced by nature then it is necessarily outside nature. Which means that our idea of the natural universe has to change, to include something outside nature. Which would probably be unverifiable because science tests what is within nature.

And that's about as far as my thinking has gone on this subject. Any comments gratefully received!
TW

Pyrrho

There are at least three positions that have had some popularity over the years. They are:

1) Hard determinism, the doctrine that all events are caused, and that this is incompatible with free will and moral responsibility.

2) Soft determinism, the doctrine that all events are caused, but this is compatible with free will and determinism.

3) "Libertarianism" (not to be confused with political views of the same name), the doctrine that certain mental events are uncaused, and therefore free.

If we look at the definitions provided by Warwick for free will:

we may observe that the first definition is not identical to the second. Think of the first definition, and consider the definitions of "voluntary":


From:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=voluntary


If we consider the third definition of "voluntary", we can see that this is compatible with being determined (soft determinism, by the way, is also sometimes called "compatiblism"). On this view, being voluntary simply means that the cause of the action was in the wishes and desires of the individual. There is nothing in that that denies that these internal wishes and desires are not themselves caused by other preceding events.

So we may say that the difference between a soft determinist and the others is in which definition of "free will" is used.

One of the more amusing aspects of your post is how you tell us that you are insane. Did you miss it? You stated:

And you previously stated:

It is a simple application of Modus Ponens that derives the conclusion that you are (or will go) mad.

I think it is safe to say that people will not go mad if they thought that they did not have free will.


You may be interested in examining what David Hume had to say about "causation". It has been fashionable, ever since his comments on that subject, to write "refutations" of what he had to say. Interestingly enough, most of these supposed refutations are regarded as examples of poor arguments even by people who feel that Hume must be wrong. For my part, I have never seen anything that appears to me to refute Hume.

One piece of advice: If you want to know what Hume had to say, read Hume. A commentary may or may not accurately represent his views.

Nowhere357

I think it's fair to say that all events are caused. Understanding (quantum) randomness is more problematic, but what reason is there to suppose randomness is uncaused?

I think it's fair to say we have free will (I do anyway). The experience of free will is subjective, and I subjectively experience it.

So compatiblism or soft determinism IMO is the default position - it requires the fewest presumptions.

Thanks for the definitions, Pyrrho.

Nowhere357

As you explain it here, I agree with your conclusion.

BUT I think it contains the logical fallacy of 'missing the point' by begging the question.

Free will must be unbiased.
Unbiased things don't exist.
Therefore free will doesn't exist.

As you explain here, unbiased things don't exist. The only way the conclusion is false, then, is if free will is biased.

What does it mean then, to say that free will has a cause? It means that free will is caused by something in the real world.

NOW I ask: what is the effect of that cause? IMO The effect of that cause is the EXISTENCE of the free will. IOW what arises from the natural cause is NOT the automatic selection of an option - what arises is a subjective entity.

This entity has two qualities. The passive quality of 'awareness', and the active quality of 'will'. Passively, we are aware of many types of mental experinces (thoughts, images/memories, senses). Actively, we can FOCUS our awareness (concentrate).

So when a selection is made, it is caused by the entity, which is caused by the body/brain.

What laws or rules govern how the entity experiences and applies the will? That's a different question. (Example - the moth is drawn to the flame).

To tell the truth, I had no conscious idea where I was going with this.

Note both qualities come and go - getting knocked out, sleeping, drugs, etc. They run through ranges.

I like to think I've made the smallest number of presumptions possible, and used the simplest and most basic observations.

Tani

the way i see the question is this:

what exactly is free will?

if i choose one thing over the other, is there a cause for my choice?

like if i choose life over death at gun point, i might think i chose, but is there nothing underlying the choice? i prefer life obviously, but that undermines the "free"-ness of the choice, there is a source of influence and that influence - my desires and emotions - is not for me to command. furthermore, i never observed any choice i made that does not involve emotions. so can i say i ever actually chose? or did my emotions and desires, of which is not under my command, choose for me? what does that mean anyway? and what does it take to choose? freely? that is to say, what does it mean to choose without any underlying reason? if there is no reason to choose one thing over the order, that is to say if there are two things completely identical to you, for any differences between them is not noticeable by you, what does it mean to choose one over the other under that circumstance?

on saying that we can subjectively experience freewill, i must say the otherwise. you can say your consciousness equal your will and that you can infer it as free because of past experiences, but you can't experience free-will as one thing. i can't doubt consciousness because i have immediate experience of it, but being free or not, that's stating the relation between my consciousness and another thing, whatever it is, or the lack thereof. i cannot see how you can do it without inferences.

VivaHedone

I'd be interested to hear your definition of free will. For me, free will would be a decision which has no cause. If the decision you make has a cause, how can it be free? Every decision has a cause or causes that you cannot control, i.e. you think it logical, it feels good, you recall a past experience, etc. Therefore free will does not exist.

Nowhere357

So would I. That's why I'm exploring.

This "begs the question".

But I understand the point. As you define it here, free will does not exist. So let's back up a moment and ask what do we observe when we talk about free will? What are we talking about?

We don't see it when we look out into the world. We see it, or seem to see it, only when we introspect. Now, what reason is there to assume it doesn't exist?

Nowhere357

I understand your point. Thinking "I have free will" is a thought that requires feedback with the brain; it a composite and not a thing in itself.

You say "you can't experience free will as one thing". IMO yes we can- not as something to look at but as something we can DO. Consider a bunch of cloned brains, all raised the same. Would they all claim the same favorite color? If the choice was equally weighted, would they choose randomly? Now, if I was one of those brains, I would notice that I could focus 'at will' on either of the equally weighted choices. That is an ability that I possess, and at the least it is detected in the world as randomness. This ability to focus my awareness is called free will, and it arises naturally from life. It allows me to affect the world. I am resposible for my actions.

Torben

Hi Nowher357

My apologies for replying this late.

Maybe I'm mixing stuff up, I dunno.
From http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m7.htm#mephy:
Metaphysics:
Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being as such.
What I meant to say was "the world as such" in contrast to "the world to us".


I agree, but: subjective reality is a function of objective reality and cannot contradict nor dictate it.


None. Maybe it's just because I don't get the concept of 'emergence', but it seems to me that it's just a fancy word describing things everybody agrees on. No one can seriously doubt that our conscience is a property of our brain (well, some can... )


I don't think so. The subconscious (or rather autonomous) nervous system constantly regulates our basic functions. So we do have an inner reality, we're not realizing. We're put as captains of a ship, we didn't ask for, not being given a manual and not being let into the boiler-room.
I can't make the connection between free will and inner world, can you elaborate, please?


Regards,
Torben