VivaHedone

Surely free will would be decisions that you, the concious, subjective you, had control over? The very concept of this is impossible, as it is the flow of electrons through our brain that determines our thoughts, and therefore decisions. When every action is caused by things that you cannot control, how can you have free will?

You claim that free will is the ability to focus on different things. I don't know where you got this from, but the idea is just as philisophically incoherent as the latter. Any decision on what to 'focus' on would be caused, like all other decisions, by the flow of electrons through the brain.

Nowhere357

If free will requires an impossible concept as you describe here, then of course you are right. I think that's missing the point by begging the question.

I don't know what free will is - that's why I'm exploring. I do know that I have the ability to focus my awareness.

I didn't think the concept of 'will' as an ACTIVE quality, was controversial. The word itself implies action, doesn't it?

Tani

actually what do you mean by "at will?" what is to will? is that a condition a mind falls into? is there causes for that condition to arise?

your example of cloned brains didn't really get the issue. basically, when you say "i would notice that i could focus 'at will' on either of..." you have already made your claim. you didn't need the cloned brains example to make that claim as they aren't really related. however, seeing that you didn't seem to see the full scope on the impact preference/emotion/feelings have on your decision, i'd like you to consider the following:

let me give you an example that would minimize, if not eliminate, the involvement of your preference/emotions/feelings. given that there is an apple and an orange on the table, and that i prefer one over the other, how do you choose the correct one? you should find that there is no reason to chose one over the other, and that's exactly how the condition must be to conduct this test. what does it mean for you to choose without your preference, without any underlying reasons? surely you still have your will to choose, and in isolation, the nature of your choice should be appearant.

what i have found is that "choice" is a meaningless concept without preference/emotions/feelings, and if these preferences/emotions/feelings are not for me to command, then my choices aren't mine to command either. but without choices, what is there to prove this thing we call "freewill?"

ps: remember, you cannot have anything to sway your decision making process. it must be done solely by your will. if you can answer why you choose one over the other because of "your current mood," or "apple starts with a, which is the first letter," or anything else other than "because it is solely according to my will," then you have tainted the test.

pss: we can't say freewill enable us to evaluate preferences, because if it is not suppose to be dependent on preferences by basing itself entirely upon preferences. that is to say if it is at all independent, it must be possible to make decision solely according to the will and nothing else.

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by Pyrrho
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.

I agree that we can do things because we desire to do them; it is the fact that these desires are caused that makes me think free will does not exist.

Warwick again:

1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>

This first definition of free will seems to cover what you are saying: we have the ability to choose & do things of our own volition.
However:

2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

I submit that everything humans do has a prior cause and therefore will is not free.

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

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I think we have the illusion of freewill, and would go mad if we thought we didn't have free will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you previously stated:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that we do not have free will...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Got me!
Let me try and state it differently.
I cannot see how we can rationally have free will, because it seems to me that all our actions/thoughts have prior causes. However, these causes are largely unknown to me, so although I think that free will cannot be possible, I still act & think as though I have free will, altho' I think (rationally) it must be an illusion.

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

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.
Is there any particular book of his that you recommend?
TW

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by 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.
I see what you are saying. What I don't see is how something can be both biased and free. Surely the bias removes the freedom?

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.
So you are saying that humans have free will because there is something that causes free will to exist? And having caused free will, is has no further effects on it, so that all our choices are free?

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.
This seems to me to be a description of how we choose given a certain set of circumstances. The circumstances limit our will. I'm not claiming that we don't have the ability to choose or no awareness of our own internal workings. I'm saying that these things go to make up our will, but because our will is based on them, it cannot be free.

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).
But if there are rules & laws which govern the will, then how can it be free?

To tell the truth, I had no conscious idea where I was going with this.
That's ok, I'm still trying to work it out in my head too
TW

Nowhere357

Tani, by 'at will' I mean the quality of making choices. It is a condition or a quality of the mind. Of course it is caused. But what is it that is caused?
The stupid cloned brains were trying to help identify the basic quality of 'free will'. Each brain has been conditioned to find all choices equally weighted. Yet each brain makes a choice nonetheless. Why?

Nowhere357

Well TW you aren't leaving me much. First you say free will cannot be unbiased. Now you say it can't be biased.

Free will is a complicated concept that carries too much baggage. I really don't claim evidence of free will. What I claim is some limited ability to focus my awareness. I just figured that when people were talking about free will, they were talking about the application of that ability.

I think my brain processes the 'next thought' without my attention. When I attend to a thought, or concentrate on it, that thought carries greater weight during the 'next loop'. IOW the thoughts I 'choose' are more important to the brain.

This ability to guide the brain into accepting lower weighted thoughts is what I call 'free will'. So it's more like a volt-meter rating than an object or entity. A 'weak-willed' person has a low rating and can't keep his mind on his job; a 'strong-willed' person has a high rating and makes a large impact on his environment.

The existence of the ability to focus attention is the mystery, IMO, and not the existence of 'free will'.

The way our brain functions, it is affected by the physical world, and it is affected by it's mental state. The laws and rules that govern our mental state are not the same laws and rules that govern physics.

John Page

Hi Everywhere!

Would you agree that a mental state is represented by or is a consequence of a physical (brain) state?

Cheers, John

Tani

those cloned brains doesn't help in identifying what is "freewill" that we talk about, since even if those brains are cloned from yours, you nevertheless don't have direct access to those cloned brains' mind, which is the problem. if you have direct access to minds, then you don't need cloned brains to make the example at all, you might as well use my brain, or other people's brain.

you seem to be only assigned those cloned brains having the same feelings of "freewill" because you have already identify yourself as making choice before hand, but that's quite a big leap from your minds to others mind, even if they are presumably cloned.

instead of assuming how other make choices, what i asked you to do is to test how you, yourself, actually make choices by choosing between two things where you have no reason to differentiate from. not that this would allow you to access others minds and know if others make decisions, but at least this little test doesn't require you to assume how other minds work.

DRFseven

And, by the way, John, do you think mental states ARE brain states, or that mental states are CAUSED BY brain states? Or do you think those two amount to the same thing? Is this the same as asking "Do rapidly moving atoms cause heat, or are rapidly moving atoms just what defines heat?"