Variation on Determination vs Free Will

[Iacchus]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1252512#p1252512)
A note on the word "random". I spent a great deal of time in graduate school struggling with courses that involved "random variables" and "random processes". Those classes were really hard, but by any definition I used in any of my classes, evolution is a random process. Why the knee jerk reaction against the word "random"?Well, look at it this way, if things change, the rules have to already be set in place that allow them to do so. And what else could that possibly mean, except that the rules have always been set in place? Which is to say, everything was scripted beforehand and, that nothing occurs by chance (or random). While I think the problem here, is that people tend to confuse the complexity of the issue with the overall picture.

So you are a determinist Iacchus?In terms of all that is natural, yes.

So what isn't natural?Let me put it this way, I believe that free will is the cause, of which deteminism is the effect. In fact, I believe that free will is the origin of everything. However, the only way free will can operate and thus be maintained, is by means of determinism. Or else what is there? Without determinism, there would be no way to define free will. There would be no expression of it. So in effect, everything must have a deterministic "ending."

So basically, we've just defined two dualistic elements, in which there must be two separate "realities" (realms) to accomodate it. The one reality where free will reigns, what we would otherwise deem spiritual, and the other reality where determinism reigns, what we would otherwise deem natural. So, currently we live in the natural world, and are governed by determinism. Yet when we die, and pass on into the spiritual world, we become spirits, and are ruled by free will.

I know it's a bit oversimplified, but it should give you the general idea. :)

Why do you not apply your determinist logic to your spiritual realm? I am not implying that it should have the same physical laws as your natural realm but don't you agree that its logic should still be consistent?Oh I'm saying determinism does apply, except somewhat in reverse. While here, in the natural world, where determinism becomes consolidated via matter, which appears to be static, with no apparent change (except over time), in the spiritual world, everything becomes consolidated via energy, in the way we think and feel, essentially, and is in a constate of flux. Hence the apparent "flip-flop" between determination and free will. This is also why I say that when we go to sleep and begin to dream (albeit it really begins with our thoughts and feelings), that this is the beginning of this.

[TobiasTheViking]

Since you have yet to prove that there is a spiritual world, this entire thread is a moot point.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But what the heck, define free will while you're here.

~~ Paul

[Beady]

But what the heck, define free will while you're here.

I've come to the conclusion that any thread loses all of its usefulness at the precise moment that people start discussing definitions.

[TobiasTheViking]

I've come to the conclusion that any thread loses all of its usefulness at the precise moment that people start discussing definitions.
I don't think this thread ever had usefulness...

Sincerely
Tobias

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So Beady is suggesting a Definitional Shark Jumping Hypothesis. Let's test this in future threads, shall we?

~~ Paul

[Mercutio]

Beady, defining things is crucial to understanding. I think the big problem is asking Iacchus, in particular, to define things. His use of any given word is likely to be unlike any other human's use of that word, but when asked to define it he will not be tied to any definition.

[Roboramma]

Actually I see it as the mention of free will that took this thread to the point of uselessness.

Discussing an idea that doesn't seem to mean anything at all. Free will. Might as well say that determinism is caused by taco stands.

[Iacchus]

Since you have yet to prove that there is a spiritual world, this entire thread is a moot point.If it's provable to me, then perhaps it's a matter of reasoning it out amongst yourselves?

By the way, what's with all the spam and derailing tactics here? I'm not referring to you in particular Tobias ... Is this typical of most of the threads on this forum or, is it a primary focus on those who tend to maintain alternative views? :confused: If you would like to discuss the difference between empirical evidence and our ability to reason, perhaps we can do so on another thread?

In fact I may as well make the split right here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=47121) ...

[Tricky]

But what the heck, define free will while you're here.

~~ Paul
(waving hand frantically in his best imitation of Hermione Granger.)
"Pick me! Pick me".


Ahem. Free will is the ability to choose between available, perceived alternatives.

Now of course, the operative word here is "choose", and the no-free-willers will argue that there is no such thing as choice. It is true that choices can be influenced by many things, even things beyond our awareness, but unless we wish to remove the highly useful word "choice" from the lexicon, then we must let it remain in my definition.

A couple of points on two of the adjectives:

Available -- The alternative must be available. The fact that you cannot "choose" to become instantly invisible does not invalidate free will. That choice is simply not available.

Percieved -- This is a very important word because it not only expands or limits the alternatives, it gives a measure of the amount of free will a creature has. For example an animal may see only two ways to confront an enemy; run or fight. There may be numerous ways, including decieve, negotiate, intimidate et. al. But if that particular animal is unaware of those alternatives, then its free will is limited.

In humans, the ability to percieve alternatives is the main characteristic of intelligence. Thus, the more intelligent a person, the more free will they have because the more alternatives they have. It is true that many of those alternatives are immediately ruled out because of their quality, but at least they were perceived.

Some will argue that my definition of free will is really only the definition of the illusion of free will. Well, I actually agree, but like the word "choice", we must at some point agree that when the illusion of free will (or choice) is indistinguishable from the "real" free will, then the distinction is moot.

Finally, free will is not a "thing". It is a useful concept that describes a set of conditions, much like "love" or "consciousness". It is not a physical (or magical) part of you that controls your actions.

Two points for Gryffindor.

[TobiasTheViking]

If it's provable to me, then perhaps it's a matter of reasoning it out amongst yourselves?
As far as i can see, you just have a fealing, or a belief.
A proof doesn't work if you can only proof you are the only one who will acknowledge it as such.

Get your proof peer reviewed and published in Nature, then it is a proof.

Of course i don't require you to do either of those things. But for this discussion to be worth anything, you have to atleast convince me, even if it isn't a scientific proof as such.

[Iacchus]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1260638#p1260638)

If it's not against any copyrights, maybe we can start each posting a paragraph at a time (with proper attributions). :)Actually, I don't think I had much of a problem eating my spinach when I was a kid. I really didn't care much for beets though. Regardless, I think I would find it difficult if somebody were trying to force feed me. :boggled: And, while some of us may attribute this to willful ignorance -- indeed -- this is what free will is all about ... not being forced to do anything you don't understand.

Perhaps this is why some of you have such a hard time reconciling yourselves to it? ;)

[Tricky]

As far as i can see, you just have a feeling, or a belief.
A proof doesn't work if you can only proof you are the only one who will acknowledge it as such.

Get your proof peer reviewed and published in Nature, then it is a proof.

Of course i don't require you to do either of those things. But for this discussion to be worth anything, you have to at least convince me, even if it isn't a scientific proof as such.
Don't confuse "proof" and "evidence". Outside of math, there is very little that can be proved or disproved. There is simply good evidence and poor or absent evidence. Being published in Nature might be considered pretty good evidence, but I'm fairly sure they've published some incorrect things before.

(mutter mutter, "but what do you expect from a commie bastige"...)

[TobiasTheViking]

Don't confuse "proof" and "evidence". Outside of math, there is very little that can be proved or disproved. There is simply good evidence and poor or absent evidence. Being published in Nature might be considered pretty good evidence, but I'm fairly sure they've published some incorrect things before.

(mutter mutter, "but what do you expect from a commie bastige"...)
granted and agreed. I could have used a better word. But i believe my opinion still came through.

[Iacchus]

But what the heck, define free will while you're here.

~~ PaulWell certainly free will and what you understand must go hand in hand, otherwise you have neither. :)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ahem. Free will is the ability to choose between available, perceived alternatives.

Now of course, the operative word here is "choose", and the no-free-willers will argue that there is no such thing as choice. It is true that choices can be influenced by many things, even things beyond our awareness, but unless we wish to remove the highly useful word "choice" from the lexicon, then we must let it remain in my definition. Not so fast! There is certainly such a thing as choice, but the question is, what is "free choice"? What is free will free from?

I presume we are talking about libertarian free will here, not compatibilist free will.

Finally, free will is not a "thing". It is a useful concept that describes a set of conditions, much like "love" or "consciousness". It is not a physical (or magical) part of you that controls your actions. I suggest that it is an utterly useless concept.

~~ Paul

[Iacchus]

Not so fast! There is certainly such a thing as choice, but the question is, what is "free choice"? What is free will free from?From the other side of our "quantum fluctuations" perhaps?

[Iacchus]

Hey, anybody ever quite figure out what the title of this thread is about? Hint hint ... ;)

[Tricky]

Not so fast! There is certainly such a thing as choice, but the question is, what is "free choice"? What is free will free from?
Free from discernable coercement. While it is true that science will continue to push back the barriers to what is discernable, I find it highly unlikely that it will ever be able to uncover pure determinism. So as long as you cannot show that a choice was coerced or pre-determined, then "free will" remains a useful concept.

I presume we are talking about libertarian free will here, not compatibilist free will.
Um... I was talking about Trickyian free will. This is my definition. It is mine. I wrote it. This is what it is, this definition of mine. I reserve all rights. Perhaps you want to hear my new theory of the brontosaurus?

I suggest that it is an utterly useless concept.
It is true that it is not a great deal more useful than the word "choice", other than that it specifies what things can be chosen.

Do you think "choice" is a useless concept too?

[Mercutio]

Free from discernable coercement. While it is true that science will continue to push back the barriers to what is discernable, I find it highly unlikely that it will ever be able to uncover pure determinism. So as long as you cannot show that a choice was coerced or pre-determined, then "free will" remains a useful concept.
ah, a god-of-the-gaps free will...you forgot to say that we disagree about free will, you and I, because you are wrong about it.

Um... I was talking about Trickyian free will. This is my definition. It is mine. I wrote it. This is what it is, this definition of mine. I reserve all rights. Perhaps you want to hear my new theory of the brontasaurus?
Hey, at least you have the courage to present a definition and stand or fall by it. Mostly fall...
It is true that it is not a great deal more useful than the word "choice", other than that it specifies what things can be chosen.

Do you think "choice" is a useless concept too?"Choice" is a very useful word, when properly defined. The behaviorist literature contains quite a bit of research on choice. But choice is often used colloquially as an explanatory fiction--why did you do that? Because I chose to. Ick. In such a case, yes, it is a useless concept too.

[Tricky]

ah, a god-of-the-gaps free will...you forgot to say that we disagree about free will, you and I, because you are wrong about it.
No, not the same at all. As I stated in the definition, free will is not a "thing". It is not a god-of-the-gaps. It is simply a useful concept, sort of like "love". I defy you to show that love actually exists, yet, look at your signature.

Hey, at least you have the courage to present a definition and stand or fall by it. Mostly fall...
Et tu, Mercutio? Then fall, Tricky...

I'm willing to refine my definition. What I'm not willing to do is to throw away a term that many people find useful. I would rather define it.

"Choice" is a very useful word, when properly defined. The behaviorist literature contains quite a bit of research on choice. But choice is often used colloquially as an explanatory fiction--why did you do that? Because I chose to. Ick. In such a case, yes, it is a useless concept too.
Throw out "think" too. You didn't actually "think" anything. It was just brain functions. I really don't see the reason in trying to throw away useful terms. Put them under the surgeons knife, and yes, you may find that the operation was successful, but the patient died.

[Mercutio]

Ah, Trixie, you are making a common mistake. "Thinking" is most often not used as an explanatory fiction, but rather as a label for a behavior (or set of behaviors). When "will" and "choice" are used in that manner, they are perfectly fine words, "useful terms" as you put it. It is when they are used circularly to "explain" the very things that we use as evidence of their existence that they are not useful. "Because I wanted to" or "because I chose to" act as reasons, when any 3-yr-old will recognise that the next question is "why did you want to?" and "why did you choose to?". Will and choice, as inner causes, are worse than useless.

A word can be useful when used properly and useless when used improperly. In present company, that really goes without saying...or should.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Um... I was talking about Trickyian free will. This is my definition. It is mine. I wrote it. This is what it is, this definition of mine. I reserve all rights. Perhaps you want to hear my new theory of the brontosaurus?
Ah well then, I certainly can't disagree with your personal definition. :D

Do you think "choice" is a useless concept too?
I think the idea of libertarian free will (or libertarian free choice, if you like), is incoherent. I think this because I have never heard a coherent definition. Various other uses of "free will" might be useful, but they aren't interesting.

~~ Paul

[Beady]

Beady, defining things is crucial to understanding. I think the big problem is asking Iacchus, in particular, to define things. His use of any given word is likely to be unlike any other human's use of that word, but when asked to define it he will not be tied to any definition.

Be that as it may, I see no need to rewrite the dictionary. I am aware of the argument that dictionaries lag behind popular usage, but I don't buy it. If you are free to redefine any word at will, under the guise of some undemonstrable popular usage, then no word has any meanng at all. So, I'll stick to the dictionary and put people like Iacchus and Ian on Ignore.

[Tricky]

Ah, Trixie, you are making a common mistake. "Thinking" is most often not used as an explanatory fiction, but rather as a label for a behavior (or set of behaviors). When "will" and "choice" are used in that manner, they are perfectly fine words, "useful terms" as you put it. It is when they are used circularly to "explain" the very things that we use as evidence of their existence that they are not useful.
C'mon Mercutie. You usually read better than this. In my original definition I specifically stated that free will was not a "thing". It is a concept. It doesn't "exist" any more than infinity exists. It doesn't try to employ circularity to explain itself. By my definition, it is simply and expansion of the concept of "choice" into "choice bounded by reality and knowledge."

Yeah, I can immediately see problems with my definition, such as "do you have free will to believe imaginary things". I don't think that free will, as I define it, really applies to that sort of situation, but I can see how it would get garbled.

Tell me if you agree with this though:
The more you know, the more choices of useful action you have. (See, I snuck the word "useful" in there to distingish between them between the choice to do nothing and trust to an imaginary deity. As I say, my definition is subject to discussion.)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Tricky, you are defining a version of compatibilist free will. No problem. But if someone else is thinking of libertarian free will, the conversation is going to go all postmodern on you.

~~ Paul

[Mercutio]

C'mon Mercutie. You usually read better than this. In my original definition I specifically stated that free will was not a "thing". It is a concept. It doesn't "exist" any more than infinity exists. It doesn't try to employ circularity to explain itself. By my definition, it is simply and expansion of the concept of "choice" into "choice bounded by reality and knowledge."
So, a perception of free will rather than an actual causal free will. I can give you that, but it won't do you any good. An illusion that really looks and feels like reality? Sounds like Iacchus's dreams...

Tell me if you agree with this though:
The more you know, the more choices of useful action you have. (See, I snuck the word "useful" in there to distingish between them between the choice to do nothing and trust to an imaginary deity. As I say, my definition is subject to discussion.)I don't know that I can agree to this. The number of useful choices you have is too often determined by your environment. As is how much you know. Your choice to place the action inside the individual is understandable, but misguided. We can manipulate the environment, but there is no magic switch we can throw to make somebody instantly know more. Even if it feels, experientially, like what you describe is free will, it is not at all a useful illusion. (well...that's not quite true. It is useful in that promoting this view makes people more attuned to the consequences of their actions, and this allows us to control them in that sense.)

[Taffer]

For me free will is an illusion. All the factors that go into making it are so complex, so great in number, that for all intents and purposes we have free will. Except we don't really. If you follow.

[Tricky]

For me free will is an illusion. All the factors that go into making it are so complex, so great in number, that for all intents and purposes we have free will. Except we don't really. If you follow.
Yes, I follow. Sort of what I am saying. Except we can't really tell if we have it or not. So why not call it "free will" and give a reasonable definition so that everyone will understand what you're talking about? You have to call it something, and it's a bit unweildy to say "the illusion that you are making a choice between alternatives but you really aren't because it's all environmental or it might be something else we don't understand fully."

As I mentioned, love is another such word which requires a context-specific defintion for a very general set of conditions, but nobody seems to be bent out of shape because there is "no such thing as love".

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Tricky, it's already defined. You can't go round postermoderning the definitions.

The only problem is, one of the definitions is incoherent. Perhaps you could replace that one. :D

~~ Paul

[Mercutio]

Yes, I follow. Sort of what I am saying. Except we can't really tell if we have it or not. So why not call it "free will" and give a reasonable definition so that everyone will understand what you're talking about? You have to call it something, and it's a bit unweildy to say "the illusion that you are making a choice between alternatives but you really aren't because it's all environmental or it might be something else we don't understand fully."
Why? Because it falsely gives an end-point to the process. Why is this any better than "goddiddit"?

As I mentioned, love is another such word which requires a context-specific defintion for a very general set of conditions, but nobody seems to be bent out of shape because there is "no such thing as love".
Strawman. When the search function is fixed (currently only recent and ancient posts are searched, and all of 2004 is ignored), you can find a behavioral analysis of Love that I posted somewhere...Love can be seen as an explanatory fiction just as easily as Free Will, but is much more satisfactorally seen as an emergent property of a category of behaviors.

Difficulty in defining something is not license to give up.

[Tricky]

So, a perception of free will rather than an actual causal free will. I can give you that, but it won't do you any good. An illusion that really looks and feels like reality? Sounds like Iacchus's dreams...
What I'm proposing is a shortcut, not a philosophy.

If you can't determine with a almost flawless degree of certainty that it is perception of free will rather that the actual ability to make choices based on availablity and perception, then how can you differentiate between them? Sure, you might find out that what you thought was a choice had at least an element of environmental control, but so what? Even if you manage to herd all those worms back into the can, you will just open other cans.

I'm not arguing that this isn't worth studying, but just that we need something to describe the effect of what feels like free will. If you insist on calling it "the illusion of free will", then fine. It will make it more difficult to talk about it in a casual way. You'll have to explain yourself every time you use the unweildy phrase.

I don't know that I can agree to this. The number of useful choices you have is too often determined by your environment.
That would be the word "available" in my definition. If your environment is such that certain alternatives are not there, then they are simply not able to be chosen.

As is how much you know. Your choice to place the action inside the individual is understandable, but misguided.
Certainly you admit that choices are often based on the individual's history, biology and preferences. If that's not "inside the individual", then where is it? Even if you are conditioned to hate coconut because you choked on some as a kid, that conditioning is part of you, the individual. The events may be external, but the memory is all yours. You're not choking on coconut when you make the choice to avoid it. You just rememember it.

And what determines which things you will remember and which you will forget? Certainly repetition helps (as Wall Street has discovered), but it is certainly not the only factor.

We can manipulate the environment, but there is no magic switch we can throw to make somebody instantly know more.
Instantly? No. Quickly? yes. That's why many restaurants give samples to assist you in your choice.

Even if it feels, experientially, like what you describe is free will, it is not at all a useful illusion. (well...that's not quite true. It is useful in that promoting this view makes people more attuned to the consequences of their actions, and this allows us to control them in that sense.)
Which sounds to me like it is an extremely useful illusion. Knowing the consequenses of your actions doesn't mean you are being controlled. In fact, the more you know, the more capable you are of making a better choice, not just for yourself, but for others.

The funny thing about (the illusion of) free will is that the more you are aware of it, the less subject you are to control. Those who feel that they "have no other choice", really are setting themselves up to have no other choice, even though others in the same situation might perceive additional, even better choices.

[Mercutio]

Strawman. When the search function is fixed (currently only recent and ancient posts are searched, and all of 2004 is ignored), you can find a behavioral analysis of Love that I posted somewhere...Love can be seen as an explanatory fiction just as easily as Free Will, but is much more satisfactorally seen as an emergent property of a category of behaviors.

Difficulty in defining something is not license to give up.
Thanks to an interested stalker, I now have a link to that explanation.
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-13867.html If I was nice, I'd tell you which post, but you will have to read it in context. So there.

[Tricky]

Tricky, it's already defined. You can't go round postermoderning the definitions.
Yes I can, dammit! My definition would be in accord with almost any dictionary. I'm only clarifying exactly what I mean when I use the term, and then I use the term consistantly. And if I don't use it consistantly, you can nail me on it.

Now I am sure that there are philosophical definitions that may or may not be part of standard dictionaries, but you're not going to get a lot of people to understand you.

However, if you define free will as "a thing that makes decisions for you" and you use that definition consistantly, then I will agree that there is no free will, by your definition.

The only problem is, one of the definitions is incoherent. Perhaps you could replace that one. I've read both of them (libertarian and compatabalist), and neither one exactly rolls off the tongue, so to speak. (I agree that the libertarian one is much more silly.) I still prefer my definition. I think most people in casual conversation would.

Forgive me for thinking philosophy is a load of old codswhallop. I have no free will to think otherwise.;)

[Tricky]

Why? Because it falsely gives an end-point to the process. Why is this any better than "goddiddit"?
Under my definition, it does not give an end point. It allows that our choices may be influenced or even determined by external factors. It does not discourage exploration of those factors.

Strawman. When the search function is fixed (currently only recent and ancient posts are searched, and all of 2004 is ignored), you can find a behavioral analysis of Love that I posted somewhere...Love can be seen as an explanatory fiction just as easily as Free Will, but is much more satisfactorally seen as an emergent property of a category of behaviors.
Bushwah!

Prosecutor (to two co-defendents): Why did you kill her?
Defendant 1: I did it because I wanted to.
Defendant 2: I did it for love.

Now why is one of those defenses less of an "end point" than another?

[Mercutio]

What I'm proposing is a shortcut, not a philosophy.
Again, so is "goddiddit".

If you can't determine with a almost flawless degree of certainty that it is perception of free will rather that the actual ability to make choices based on availablity and perception, then how can you differentiate between them? Sure, you might find out that what you thought was a choice had at least an element of environmental control, but so what? Even if you manage to herd all those worms back into the can, you will just open other cans.
After enough demonstrations of "vary X in the environment, see Y behavior change, note that the individual is unaware and feels like it is a free choice", I think the burden of proof is on the extraordinary claim of an inner cause.

I'm not arguing that this isn't worth studying, but just that we need something to describe the effect of what feels like free will. If you insist on calling it "the illusion of free will", then fine. It will make it more difficult to talk about it in a casual way. You'll have to explain yourself every time you use the unweildy phrase.
I don't use the unweildy phrase in colloquial speech. I also don't speak of "earth-rotation" instead of "sunrise". But there is also a time and a place for precision. A discussion on whether free will exists at all is not a time for a fuzzy definition of the term.
That would be the word "available" in my definition. If your environment is such that certain alternatives are not there, then they are simply not able to be chosen.
So you agree. Good.
Certainly you admit that choices are often based on the individual's history, biology and preferences. If that's not "inside the individual", then where is it? Even if you are conditioned to hate coconut because you choked on some as a kid, that conditioning is part of you, the individual. The events may be external, but the memory is all yours. You're not choking on coconut when you make the choice to avoid it. You just rememember it.
If that's not inside the individual...it is in the individual's environmental history. The individual's biology is a phylogenetic result of environment, too, and "preferences" is covered between those two.

And what determines which things you will remember and which you will forget? Certainly repetition helps (as Wall Street has discovered), but it is certainly not the only factor.
An excellent question! Note, it is one which is completely dismissed under the assumption of free will.

Instantly? No. Quickly? yes. That's why many restaurants give samples to assist you in your choice.
Thank you for illustrating my point. Yes, there are many ways of manipulating the environment to favor one response or another.

Which sounds to me like it is an extremely useful illusion. Knowing the consequenses of your actions doesn't mean you are being controlled. In fact, the more you know, the more capable you are of making a better choice, not just for yourself, but for others.
Being aware of consequences is good, but it is incomplete. The antecedents of behavior are typically ignored, and we are forced to modify behavior only after the fact, rather than promoting or suppressing various behaviors before they occur. A more complete understanding would result in fewer aversive consequences.

The funny thing about (the illusion of) free will is that the more you are aware of it, the less subject you are to control. Those who feel that they "have no other choice", really are setting themselves up to have no other choice, even though others in the same situation might perceive additional, even better choices....he asserted. Conversely, only by recognising that we have no free will are we led to the conclusion that we can bring about change by changing the environment...as an example, look at Behavior Modification and developmentally disabled individuals. By assuming no free will, we are able to design programs that allow much greater freedom (that is, less reliance on medication, less reliance on others, more successful self-management, greater independence).

[Mercutio]

Under my definition, it does not give an end point. It allows that our choices may be influenced or even determined by external factors. It does not discourage exploration of those factors.
So why do you call it "free will" again?


Bushwah!

Prosecutor (to two co-defendents): Why did you kill her?
Defendant 1: I did it because I wanted to.
Defendant 2: I did it for love.

Now why is one of those defenses less of an "end point" than another?Neither is. In both these cases, you are using it as an explanatory fiction, an inferred "cause". Both are useless end points.

[Tricky]

Again, so is "goddiddit".
It is more of a "wedunnowhadiddit", just like anything we don't completely understand.

After enough demonstrations of "vary X in the environment, see Y behavior change, note that the individual is unaware and feels like it is a free choice", I think the burden of proof is on the extraordinary claim of an inner cause.
So if you manipulate ever variable you can think of, but the subject still makes the same decision, would you call that an "inner cause", or would you say "something exterior made him have this unalterable preference"? Sounds very much like the sorts of excuses that religious people make for their god.

I don't use the unweildy phrase in colloquial speech. I also don't speak of "earth-rotation" instead of "sunrise". But there is also a time and a place for precision. A discussion on whether free will exists at all is not a time for a fuzzy definition of the term.
Well tough. I'm giving a definition that makes sense and is internally consistant. I won't accept your strawman definition in place of my own.

If that's not inside the individual...it is in the individual's environmental history. The individual's biology is a phylogenetic result of environment, too, and "preferences" is covered between those two.
But their history, their biology all those things are part of the person. They cannot be separated from him. You may argue that all those external factors made the person what he is, but in the end, it is still the person, the accumulated product of his biology and history, that is making the decision.

If you give a blood transfusion to a person, is that blood "internal" to the person, or do you forever regard each cell as something external that was implanted into him? Why should it be any different with memories?

An excellent question! Note, it is one which is completely dismissed under the assumption of free will.
No it is not. It is held open.

Thank you for illustrating my point. Yes, there are many ways of manipulating the environment to favor one response or another.
Offering samples allows the individual to base their response on data, rather than memories or assumptions. I cannot see how that manipulates the environment to favor a certain response.

Being aware of consequences is good, but it is incomplete. The antecedents of behavior are typically ignored, and we are forced to modify behavior only after the fact, rather than promoting or suppressing various behaviors before they occur. A more complete understanding would result in fewer aversive consequences.
By all means, do what you can to reduce the possibility of aversive consequenses. You'll never eliminate selective memory though.

...he asserted. Conversely, only by recognising that we have no free will are we led to the conclusion that we can bring about change by changing the environment...as an example, look at Behavior Modification and developmentally disabled individuals. By assuming no free will, we are able to design programs that allow much greater freedom (that is, less reliance on medication, less reliance on others, more successful self-management, greater independence).
I don't doubt that you are able to achieve behavior modification in people, however, I do not see that the assumption of no free will is necessary to achieve this. Nor do I agree that the people who have had their behavior modified (but not strictly controlled) are bereft of free will for many other choices. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that certain strong-willed (if I may use the term) individuals reject conditioning.

[Tricky]

So why do you call it "free will" again?
Because it has the appearance of free will.

Neither is. In both these cases, you are using it as an explanatory fiction, an inferred "cause". Both are useless end points.How about if I call free will "an emergent property of a catagory of behaviors". Will that make it all right? Certainly that case could be argued.

You argue that my saying "you cannot predict everything" is resorting to god-of-the-gaps, yet you have no problem making a similar assumption that even though we can't explain everything, someday we will. Should we call this "god-of-the-caulk"?

[Iacchus]

So, if God had free will, and He existed on the other side of this "void" you folks keeps referring to, wouldn't His free will also extend into our "little world?" This by the way, would coincide with this spiritual "thingee" that I brought up in the original post. Meaning, the fact that we have free will or, the appearance of it -- similar to the appearance of evolution that is ;) -- constitutes evidence don't you think?

[Mercutio]

You argue that my saying "you cannot predict everything" is resorting to god-of-the-gaps, yet you have no problem making a similar assumption that even though we can't explain everything, someday we will. Should we call this "god-of-the-caulk"?
The former is a negative definition, which shrinks with each new discovery. The latter is a positive definition, stronger with each new discovery. Certainly we may reach a point of diminishing returns, where we run out of variables to check. We aren't close yet.

In physics, we used to have inner causes, too. Things fell to earth because they wanted to. Physics took off after we abandoned the inferred inner causes for the empirically testable external ones. There is still uncertainty here, too--just ask Heisenberg. But a very real limit to observation there does not suddenly offer proof that the inner cause is right. Negative definitions don't work that way. If we can find no more environmental causes for a behavior, you will say it is internally caused. Perhaps, though, it was caused by the gods. Or my psychokinetic cat. Or Iacchus's dream. Ah, but it has the appearance of free will? So do those.

[Mercutio]

So, if God had free will,Assumes both a god and Free Will, neither of which are evidenced.
and He existed on the other side of this "void" you folks keeps referring toWho has refered to a void? "Nothing" is not a void, it is nothing.
, wouldn't His free will also extend into our "little domain?" Why should it? You can suppose anything you wish, but there is no reason to suppose that your suppositions are meaningful.
This, by the way, would coincide with this spiritual "thingee" that I brought up in the original post.In that all involved are the fictitious figments of your fevered imagination, yes.
Meaning, the fact that we have free will or, the appearance of it, Two very different "facts", Iacchus. Which is it?
similar to the appearance of evolutionNot at all similar. There is evidence for the fact of evolution.
, constitutes evidence don't you think?No. Not even close. Thanks for playing, don't let the door slam your butt on the way out.

[Taffer]

Tricky: But we do know if there is true free will or not. Or, at least, I do. Since I believe in a deterministic universe (excluding random elements), it is not possible for any form of free will to exist. Given the exact same conditions, the same person would make the same 'desicion' every time. The 'illusion' comes from the fact that these factors are so complex, as to be essentially impossible to predict. Thus, on the 'small' scale we have free will, but on the 'large' scale we see that we do not. We do, but we don't, or something like that.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Forgive me for thinking philosophy is a load of old codswhallop. I have no free will to think otherwise.
By "philosophy" here you mean metaphysics, right? :D

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Given the exact same conditions, the same person would make the same 'desicion' every time.
Not if there is a random factor involved. That would make it seem even more free willy.

~~ Paul

[kmortis]

I have to agree with Tricky. First off, I've always like the Tick better than Affleck. Secondly, from his definiton, it sounds like he's taken into account all the lead-in factors (of education, experience, rearing, et al) and posits that at the moment of choice, all those things have an influence, but the person still can go against them.

I liken it to the weather. Lorentz was able to model storms and such by dusting off a 14th c. mathematics. This showed that, given an initial set of variables, a set of outcomes had the highest probablity. This is similar to the concept of free will. We all have unique initial conditions. Each one of us will probably choose from a limited set of possible outcomes. But we still can choose them.

(note: this is not to imply that the weather "chooses" it's outcome)

[Taffer]

Not if there is a random factor involved. That would make it seem even more free willy.

~~ Paul

Indeed, which is why I said "excluding randomness". But even random elements are deterministic, or at least their outcomes are. I would not count anything random as being free will.

[Iacchus]

If free will exists, then it had to come from someplace, and probably from without your world of cause-and-effect.

[Tricky]

By "philosophy" here you mean metaphysics, right? :D

~~ Paul
Umm.... I might. :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Indeed, which is why I said "excluding randomness". But even random elements are deterministic, or at least their outcomes are. I would not count anything random as being free will.
Oops, sorry, missed that parenthetical phrase. But random elements are not deterministic. The definition of deterministic is "not random." Perhaps you mean that sometimes the outcome of many random events is predictable. But all you need is one random thought to render a decision nondeterministic.

I agree that randomness is not free will. So libertarian free will has to involve a mechanism that is neither deterministic nor random. That's why it's incoherent.

~~ Paul

[Iacchus]

Even free will, in order to be maintained, has to have structure, otherwise there would be neither ... contingent upon the fact God is the Creator and the embodiment of free will and structure at the same time. ;)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, and if someone could describe that structure, then I might stop repeating that the concept of free will is incoherent.

~~ Paul

[Iacchus]

Yes, and if someone could describe that structure, then I might stop repeating that the concept of free will is incoherent.

~~ PaulOh, well, you didn't by any chance see the original post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=47117) did you? ... Well, I guess some things are just too farfetched. :p

[Tricky]

Yes, and if someone could describe that structure, then I might stop repeating that the concept of free will is incoherent.

~~ Paul
LOL. Depends on how you define it. As a structure, it is incoherant. As as description, it works just fine.:D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It works fine if everyone knows you're talking about compatibilist free will.

Have I beaten this with a bat long enough?

~~ Paul

[Marquis de Carabas]

Perhaps if you drove some nails through the bat before you start swinging next time.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh gosh, no. I'd willingly back down before getting to the nail thing.

~~ Paul

[Tricky]

It works fine if everyone knows you're talking about compatibilist free will.

Have I beaten this with a bat long enough?

~~ Paul
I'm counting on few people knowing the difference between compatibilist free will and libertarian free will. That is an assumption that I can safely make for a large majority of the population. Heck, I'm just trying to come up with a useful definition for the term, not to battle philosophy majors.

The way that Iacchus and other LFW'ers use the term, it is completely incoherant. But then, they're mostly incoherant about everything.

Put your bat away.

[Taffer]

Oops, sorry, missed that parenthetical phrase. But random elements are not deterministic. The definition of deterministic is "not random." Perhaps you mean that sometimes the outcome of many random events is predictable. But all you need is one random thought to render a decision nondeterministic.

I agree that randomness is not free will. So libertarian free will has to involve a mechanism that is neither deterministic nor random. That's why it's incoherent.

~~ Paul

Nononono, "the effects" are deterministic. Ye gads, if I came across as thinking that the random elements are deterministic in themselves, I must be bonkers! :boggled:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I know what you mean, but not even the "macro effects" are deterministic. They are predictable, but not deterministic. But anyhoo, I know what you mean.

~~ Paul

[Taffer]

I know what you mean, but not even the "macro effects" are deterministic. They are predictable, but not deterministic. But anyhoo, I know what you mean.

~~ Paul

Oh. I used "deterministic" to mean "once started cause events to follow". Perhaps this is the wrong word. My bad. :o

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And it may well be that using the word deterministic for that is okay. Mostly I was just giving you trouble.

~~ Paul

[Taffer]

And it may well be that using the word deterministic for that is okay. Mostly I was just giving you trouble.

~~ Paul

:D All good mate. :D

[Iacchus]

way that Iacchus and other LFW'ers use the term, it is completely incoherant. But then, they're mostly incoherant about everything.

Put your bat away.And of course, if you were to read the orginal post (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?p=1263388#post1263388), you would understand that I was a compatibilist. Yeah, and just think, if God's existence was based upon free will, and yet, the only way that could be maintained is through determinism, that would explain how (according to Biblical sources) God could endow man with free will, and yet still project ahead of time in full detail, how man will behave.

[hodgy]

...if I came across as thinking that the random elements are deterministic in themselves, I must be bonkers!

For all intents and purposes the random events are also 'deterministic in themselves' since they cannot be prevented from happening. We cannot explain their origin but then neither can we ultimately explain the origin of anything. There will forever be another question that it is possible to ask.

[hodgy]

For all intents and purposes the random events are also 'deterministic in themselves' since they cannot be prevented from happening. We cannot explain their origin but then neither can we ultimately explain the origin of anything. There will forever be another question that it is possible to ask.

Futhermore, if time is actually just a dimension like any other and it is logically possible to conceive of past, present and future states coexisting in some universal universe then what to us are apparently random events are in fact just the edges of fixed artifacts that together comprise the big model of existence. In this model nothing moves, nothing changes, the model describes everything at all times and in all directions.

As I said in a previous post, such a concept is a reinforcement of determinism rather than a challenge to it. If you could see the model you would be able to describe all of the apparently random events that would happen when traversing a given dimension (e.g. time).

Interestingly, we can construct a simple model universe that only has 3 dimensions and by choosing one dimension to act in a manner similar to the way that we (humans) percieve time we can traverse that arbitrary dimension and percieve 'random' events in our 'present' 2 dimensions.

[Belz...]

And of course, if you were to read the orginal post (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?p=1263388#post1263388), you would understand that I was a compatibilist. Yeah, and just think, if God's existence was based upon free will, and yet, the only way that could be maintained is through determinism, that would explain how (according to Biblical sources) God could endow man with free will, and yet still project ahead of time in full detail, how man will behave.

I still don't know what that means... free will ?

How could you make a decision completely independent from various physical factors ? How could you make a different decision in precisely the same circumstances ? Randomness ? That's not WILL.

[Iacchus]

I still don't know what that means... free will ?

How could you make a decision completely independent from various physical factors ? How could you make a different decision in precisely the same circumstances ? Randomness ? That's not WILL.If nothing was determined, what would free will act upon? It would be sort of like building a house, versus the life of those who dwelt inside of the house. The structure of the house (determinism) exists for the express use of the occupants (free will) that dwell inside.

[Belz...]

If nothing was determined, what would free will act upon? It would be sort of like building a house, versus the life of those who dwelt inside of the house. The structure of the house (determinism) exists for the express use of the occupants (free will) that dwell inside.

That doesn't even make sense, because you are (again) assuming some sort of divinity to the mind.

But even so, what gives the spirit free will ? What allows you to make decisions that are not either random or predetermined ?

[Iacchus]

That doesn't even make sense, because you are (again) assuming some sort of divinity to the mind.

But even so, what gives the spirit free will ? What allows you to make decisions that are not either random or predetermined ?Well, if you weren't self-aware at the moment you make a decision, what would be the point? There would be no choice, right?

[Belz...]

Well, if you weren't self-aware at the moment you make a decision, what would be the point? There would be no choice, right?

You are purposely dodging, Iacchus. ASSUMING we have a self-aware, spiritual soul, how can it have free will, since its decisions are either influenced by predetermined factors, or by random quantum fluctuations. Please answer instead of asking another question.

[hodgy]

In some arguments Iaachus has come dangerously close to applying logic. One can almost sense the metaphysical panic as he painfully steers away from the obvious when he realises what is afoot. To be honest, I am surprised you all give him so much attention, perhaps you just love to bait the bull (bull is a very apt word in this case).

[Iacchus]

In some arguments Iaachus has come dangerously close to applying logic. One can almost sense the metaphysical panic as he painfully steers away from the obvious when he realises what is afoot. To be honest, I am surprised you all give him so much attention, perhaps you just love to bait the bull (bull is a very apt word in this case).What, dangerous in the sense that you might actually have to consider changing your views?

[Iacchus]

That doesn't even make sense, because you are (again) assuming some sort of divinity to the mind.Yes, I am arguing from the standpoint that a spiritual world does exist.

But even so, what gives the spirit free will ? What allows you to make decisions that are not either random or predetermined ?As I have suggested in the original post (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=47117), free will is what predominates on the other side of this quantum fluctuation thingee and, that determinism predominates on this side of the quantum fluctuation thingee. And by means of this, two separate (but distinctly opposite) worlds are maintained ... more at "reciprocal."

[Belz...]

Yes, I am arguing from the standpoint that a spiritual world does exist.

That proves to be your greatest downfall. In arguing with your conclusion already accepted as true, you only provide circular reasoning. In order to prove your point, you'd have to argue starting from the default position, not the position of your claim.

free will is what predominates on the other side of this quantum fluctuation thingee and, that determinism predominates on this side of the quantum fluctuation thingee.

That would certainly be an interesting subject, Iacchus. But only IF you were able to define "free will" in a practical way.

[hodgy]

What, dangerous in the sense that you might actually have to consider changing your views?

Sometimes you appear to follow a logical progression only to veer suddenly and inexplicably away from it with some odd statement. So - dangerous in the sense that you might actually have to change your views.

[hodgy]

To be honest, I am surprised you all give him so much attention, perhaps you just love to bait the bull (bull is a very apt word in this case).

I apologise for this statement, there was no need for it.

[hodgy]

Yes, I am arguing from the standpoint that a spiritual world does exist.

As I have suggested in the original post (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=47117), free will is what predominates on the other side of this quantum fluctuation thingee and, that determinism predominates on this side of the quantum fluctuation thingee. And by means of this, two separate (but distinctly opposite) worlds are maintained ... more at "reciprocal."

Determinism is not dependent on the material world, its foundation is logic. Suppose the dead me is floating around in the ether considering whether to manifest through medium A (say James VDP) or medium B (say Derrick Acorah). If I choose Dezza we can ask - why did Hodgy choose to manifest through Dezza? The decision could either be caused (e.g. Dezza was recommended to me by my spirit mate down the spirit pub) or random - there is logically no more free will in heaven than there is upon earth.

[Iacchus]

Sometimes you appear to follow a logical progression only to veer suddenly and inexplicably away from it with some odd statement. So - dangerous in the sense that you might actually have to change your views.That would be tear-a-bull (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html#16) now wouldn't it? ;)

[hodgy]

That would be tear-a-bull (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html#16) now wouldn't it? ;)
Hmmm - there you go again, still, that bird in the background graphic is quite tasty (don't know what she has to do with the subject mater though).

[Iacchus]

Hmmm - there you go again, still, that bird in the background graphic is quite tasty (don't know what she has to do with the subject mater though).Notwithstanding that the establishment is fully entrenched in its views. The bird in the background is Hedy Lamarr, and she's the goddess I've elected to watch over me. In many ways (to me), she represents the heavenly bride or, New Jerusalem, about to alight down on earth. ~ Revelation 21:2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=21&version=9)

[hodgy]

Notwithstanding that the establishment is fully entrenched in its views. The bird in the background is Hedy Lamarr, and she's the goddess I've elected to watch over me. In many ways (to me), she represents the heavenly bride or, New Jerusalem, about to alight down on earth. ~ Revelation 21:2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=21&version=9)

Good choice / election.

[kmortis]

Good choice / election.

I agree, a bit old for my taste, but I wouldn't kick her outta bed...



...unless there was more room on the floor. ;)