On freewill and choice.

so I dont know who you mean by "we"

this is a legal usage with no implications of philosophical interest, as far as I know, so why are you using it?

What is the usage which philosophers should have interest in?

an agent has free will on occasions when that agent makes and enacts a conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives.

ETA: when quoting a poster, why do you cut out the link to that post?

Do you think this conflicts, or is that different from, the definition I provided? Well, as far as I can see, there is nothing conflicting. I think it is as you say.

It is because I usually respond in the "Quick Reply" section. So, I copy what I want to reply to, and then paste it in the quick reply box below.

Demonstrated free will? What's that about? I wasn't trying to demonstrate that I had free will when I walked past the sign. I'm saying that I had it. I could have spit on the sign of my own free will.

Yes, I could have spit on the sign of my own free will had I chosen to spit on the sign, but don't mistake that truth for my saying that choosing to spit or not spit was a necessary condition of having free will. So long as I could have done it, so long as I wasn't restrained from doing it, and so long as I wasn't constrained to do it, then I could have done it of my own free will; hence, it was possible that I could have done what I wanted in the absence of compulsion.

I am fairly illiterate when it comes to physics, but I feel it has relevance to this thread. So please bear with me...

There are two basic theories of existence. Classical and Quantum

Classical theory states that all physical conditions that pertain in the universe at any one time will have non-random material causes. Thus, in much the same way as I could predict when each and every domino in a domino rally will fall and in what direction, so long as I know the initial condition prior to pushing the first domino over, if one had a God's eye view at the beginning of the universe such that one knew the precise trajectory, velocity and position of each and every material entity at that point in time one could, in principle, predict the precise position, trajectory and velocity of every single entity right up to the present time. Given that the human brain is a part of the physical universe and, given that human cognition is a material function of human brains, one would be forced to conclude that there can be no such thing as free will since each and every particle of the human brain is just so much dominoes. But then, in a classical universe consisting of a non-random chain of causal events, I would say that, wouldn't I....

Quantum theory operates at the very tiny and also at the every extremes. Thus, at the beginning of the universe, it would be imposable to predict ahead (even for a God) because of the random popping in and out of existence of physical entities. So far as I understand it, this is also true right now if you go small enough. However, in terms of free will, the above is of little comfort since the predictable determinism of classical theory is merely replaced with the non-predictable determinism of quantum theory. There is still no place for free will. But then, in a quantum universe consisting of a random chain of causal events, I would say that, wouldn't I ....

Or am I missing something?

Haha! I happened to read this post earlier today, and not having time to respond to it at that moment, I was determined to look it back up this evening. However, when I returned to this forum I was drawn to a very similar post you made in a very similar thread, and I thought, "This seems a bit different than earlier, but it doesn't appear that the poster has edited it." I thought I was going a bit crazy until I realized what had happened. Oh, how these "free will v. determinism" threads proliferate.

I know that you are already debating these claims in another thread, but I wanted to come at this argument from an angle different than ughaibu's so I thought that I would do so in this thread. I have some reservations regarding your argument, but I do not want to give the impression that I am trying to gang up on you.

In my response, I'm going to lay aside the claims of classical physics, seeing as how they have largely been superceded by those of general relativity and quantum mechanics. I should also make it plain that I am not a physicist, nor can I lay any claim to any great understanding of the higher mathematics involved in either discipline. (Over the course of the last year, however, I have been doing an increasing amount of reading in physics, with a greater focus on relativity rather than QM. It's strange how a few small questions about fluid dynamics can snowball into a more involved course of reading. But I am afraid that because I am weak in math that I will never have more than a layman's grasp of the either physical theory. [Whew, what a long preamble the above has proven to be, given how minor and stumbling the thing is that I want to say.])

The issue I have is, in part, with your domino rally metaphor. While it is an acceptable illustration of a causal series, this model of causation is undermined by both general relativity and quantum mechanics. It seems to me that both scientific theories problematize the idea of linear time in general, but they certainly challenge the idea of casaul chains. The apparent randomness presented by QM, as well as relative motion in relativity theory, is largely presumed by scientists to represent a higher order. And in order to begin analyzing their "occurence" calculations need to be made assuming more than the three dimensions accessible by Newtonian physics. If I can say something so absurd without sounding too "science fiction"-y, in order for the problems of modern physics to be sorted out we have to figure out how bodies operate in a fourth dimension. In other words, the properties of space/time are very different than either of the classical notions of space and time.

This undermining of the linear theory of cause and effect, to me, also undermines most of the arguments that make up the classical determinist position. Of course, it also undermines the standard arguments of the free will advocate, since they also rest on a linear time model. If you want to look at my few feeble contributions to this thread, available on pgs. 4 and 5, you might see that I try to advocate for a view that contains some compromised features of the free will argument. However, I do think that the terms in which each position is presented are inadequate tools to achieve the tasks they set for themselves.

There are many problems within modern physics that have yet to be resolved (ridiculous understatement), much less how they may be reasonably applied to explain the mundane processes of everyday experience. However, as scientists continue to develop their investigation, I believe that certain features of both the free will and the determinist positions will survive, and likely be combined in a complex synthesis. Whether that belief, tenuous as it is even for me, represents a form of optimism or pessimism is difficult for me to say.

I am not even close to a point where my own thoughts have coagulated into a coherent theory, nor am I prepared to give a full presentation regarding the scientific/philosophical reading that forms the background for much of the incoherent thoughts that I do have, but my current speculative position goes something like this: If the entirety of an individual's life forms a discrete unit, the apparent temporal progression of the same describing a dynamic pattern, then one must consider the possibility that when one's being (and I assure you that the term "being" is only being adopted because I am exhausted and can't think of a better word) encounters another the results are the product of their interaction on multiple levels, not restricted to an action/reaction process.

In much simpler language (Really?! Well, it couldn't be any more complicatedly nonsensical), when one object affects another, the effect is not the product of the cause. Rather the effect is the result of the interaction of both participating bodies. In my own poor analogy, every event is less like one domino mechanically hitting another in succession, and more like the encounter between sperm and ovum. The two participants each contribute something to an entirely new event, and generate a map for a host of new possible occurrences. Or to use a less biological metaphor. An event is less like a moving cue ball hitting a stationary 8-ball, but more like two balls converging on a single point of impact. The result affects the trajectory of both balls. Extending this sort of "inanimate interaction metaphor", when one domino hits another, the stationary domino is not so much passively at rest waiting for the forward falling domino to hit it, so much as it is actively falling as well, straight down on a solid surface. The impact of the forward falling domino affects the trajectory of the stationary one, and the stationary domino's new position arrests the fall of the first.

I'm thinking now that I have wasted a lot of time, mine and yours if you've read this far, on some rather ridiculous speculations, as boring as they are specious. I'm not entirely sure whether all of this verbiage is not a fallacious bit of sophistry. I'd be interested if you have any criticism, provided such a badly put together bunch of half-notions can even be criticized, but I probably won't respond. I don't feel what I have said warrants defending. And now, I go to bed...

...However, as I have said, I have only read your post once over and need to read it a number of times. And so I fully reserve the right to retract any/all of the above.......

You know, having reviewed what I wrote last night, I wouldn't recommend it. It doesn't bear up to any degree of scrutiny. I was on quite a tear last night; not booze, merely exhaustion induced mania. Most of what I wrote relates to a lot of other thoughts I've been tossing around, and has only a tenuously tangential connection to the free will v. determinism debate. Besides, it represents such an eclectic mix of analogies and cross discipline comparisons in so stunted a form that it would probably only make sense to me, or someone who has read the exact books that I have read in the same order and developed a similar conceptual short-hand.

That being said, I would like to make some meaningful contribution here that does actually touch on the issue at hand. My objection to both the free will advocate and the determinist is this: The classical arguments of both perspectives seem to assume that an event can be divided (in some sense) into separate temporal states, connected by a transitional leap. The debate circles around the nature of this leap. "Is the agent of change free will, or is it a case of cause and effect?" My contention is that modern physics shows us that change, far from being the exception that requires explanation, is in fact the norm. What requires investigation is not the change, but instead the nature of the interaction between two disparate processes. This interaction can not be reduced to either free will nor cause and effect.

To me, the controversy surrounding free will v. determinism is not terribly unlike two interior decorators arguing about what sort of decoration to apply to an empty wall. One wants to put up a mirror, the other wants to put up a trompe 'oeil picture of a bookshelf. They disagree vehemently, but they are both in agreement that this wall "needs" something. However, their concern is primarily aesthetic, and has no bearing on the wall's integrity. Regardless of the frame applied, the wall is there to hold up the ceiling and keep out the wind.

My argumentation for Hard Determinism is not linear in Time, and neither in the circumscription of events...at best I may use such particulars sporadically for the convenience of making myself understood...But I strongly believe that Reality is a DEFINED a priori MONAD...all elements sequence is instantaneous and interdependent in all directions in such way that we may not even speak on elements apart from each other...Time as I conceive it is a convenient illusion !...

Haha! I happened to read this post earlier today, and not having time to respond to it at that moment, I was determined to look it back up this evening. However, when I returned to this forum I was drawn to a very similar post you made in a very similar thread, and I thought, "This seems a bit different than earlier, but it doesn't appear that the poster has edited it." I thought I was going a bit crazy until I realized what had happened. Oh, how these "free will v. determinism" threads proliferate.

I know that you are already debating these claims in another thread, but I wanted to come at this argument from an angle different than ughaibu's so I thought that I would do so in this thread. I have some reservations regarding your argument, but I do not want to give the impression that I am trying to gang up on you.

In my response, I'm going to lay aside the claims of classical physics, seeing as how they have largely been superceded by those of general relativity and quantum mechanics. I should also make it plain that I am not a physicist, nor can I lay any claim to any great understanding of the higher mathematics involved in either discipline. (Over the course of the last year, however, I have been doing an increasing amount of reading in physics, with a greater focus on relativity rather than QM. It's strange how a few small questions about fluid dynamics can snowball into a more involved course of reading. But I am afraid that because I am weak in math that I will never have more than a layman's grasp of the either physical theory. [Whew, what a long preamble the above has proven to be, given how minor and stumbling the thing is that I want to say.])

The issue I have is, in part, with your domino rally metaphor. While it is an acceptable illustration of a causal series, this model of causation is undermined by both general relativity and quantum mechanics. It seems to me that both scientific theories problematize the idea of linear time in general, but they certainly challenge the idea of casaul chains. The apparent randomness presented by QM, as well as relative motion in relativity theory, is largely presumed by scientists to represent a higher order. And in order to begin analyzing their "occurence" calculations need to be made assuming more than the three dimensions accessible by Newtonian physics. If I can say something so absurd without sounding too "science fiction"-y, in order for the problems of modern physics to be sorted out we have to figure out how bodies operate in a fourth dimension. In other words, the properties of space/time are very different than either of the classical notions of space and time.

This undermining of the linear theory of cause and effect, to me, also undermines most of the arguments that make up the classical determinist position. Of course, it also undermines the standard arguments of the free will advocate, since they also rest on a linear time model. If you want to look at my few feeble contributions to this thread, available on pgs. 4 and 5, you might see that I try to advocate for a view that contains some compromised features of the free will argument. However, I do think that the terms in which each position is presented are inadequate tools to achieve the tasks they set for themselves.

There are many problems within modern physics that have yet to be resolved (ridiculous understatement), much less how they may be reasonably applied to explain the mundane processes of everyday experience. However, as scientists continue to develop their investigation, I believe that certain features of both the free will and the determinist positions will survive, and likely be combined in a complex synthesis. Whether that belief, tenuous as it is even for me, represents a form of optimism or pessimism is difficult for me to say.

I am not even close to a point where my own thoughts have coagulated into a coherent theory, nor am I prepared to give a full presentation regarding the scientific/philosophical reading that forms the background for much of the incoherent thoughts that I do have, but my current speculative position goes something like this: If the entirety of an individual's life forms a discrete unit, the apparent temporal progression of the same describing a dynamic pattern, then one must consider the possibility that when one's being (and I assure you that the term "being" is only being adopted because I am exhausted and can't think of a better word) encounters another the results are the product of their interaction on multiple levels, not restricted to an action/reaction process.

In much simpler language (Really?! Well, it couldn't be any more complicatedly nonsensical), when one object affects another, the effect is not the product of the cause. Rather the effect is the result of the interaction of both participating bodies. In my own poor analogy, every event is less like one domino mechanically hitting another in succession, and more like the encounter between sperm and ovum. The two participants each contribute something to an entirely new event, and generate a map for a host of new possible occurrences. Or to use a less biological metaphor. An event is less like a moving cue ball hitting a stationary 8-ball, but more like two balls converging on a single point of impact. The result affects the trajectory of both balls. Extending this sort of "inanimate interaction metaphor", when one domino hits another, the stationary domino is not so much passively at rest waiting for the forward falling domino to hit it, so much as it is actively falling as well, straight down on a solid surface. The impact of the forward falling domino affects the trajectory of the stationary one, and the stationary domino's new position arrests the fall of the first.

I'm thinking now that I have wasted a lot of time, mine and yours if you've read this far, on some rather ridiculous speculations, as boring as they are specious. I'm not entirely sure whether all of this verbiage is not a fallacious bit of sophistry. I'd be interested if you have any criticism, provided such a badly put together bunch of half-notions can even be criticized, but I probably won't respond. I don't feel what I have said warrants defending. And now, I go to bed...

stevecook172001;172902 wrote:

...However, as I have said, I have only read your post once over and need to read it a number of times. And so I fully reserve the right to retract any/all of the above.......

That being said, I would like to make some meaningful contribution here that does actually touch on the issue at hand. My objection to both the free will advocate and the determinist is this: The classical arguments of both perspectives seem to assume that an event can be divided (in some sense) into separate temporal states, connected by a transitional leap. The debate circles around the nature of this leap. "Is the agent of change free will, or is it a case of cause and effect?" My contention is that modern physics shows us that change, far from being the exception that requires explanation, is in fact the norm. What requires investigation is not the change, but instead the nature of the interaction between two disparate processes. This interaction can not be reduced to either free will nor cause and effect.

A signinifcant aspect of free will is that it gives the agent in posession of it control, and both determinism and randomness provide zero control.

Gorilla Nipples wrote:

A signinifcant aspect of free will is that it gives the agent in posession of it control, and both determinism and randomness provide zero control.

Randomness can allow for free will. The problem most people have with randomness is that they think randomness is always just white noise without any possibility for patterns or structure. That's simply false though. If you flip a coin an infinite number of times, you will get every pattern possible, including an infinite string of heads, an infinite string of tales, even a string that spells out the King James Bible in ASCII, and so on. All possible patterns will be represented and therefore there is plenty of room for patterns and structure.

What does randomness imply for human choice? Well, it means that from one moment to the next, anything can happen. You could decide to shake your friend's hand but instead your arm mysteriously flies out and punches him in the face. Yet, such things don't happen. Instead, randomly but reliably, when you decide to shake hands, you shake hands.

What matters is predictability, not some mysterious notion of control. If I can predict that when I will my fist to punch someone, that it does it, then I am responsible for just such an occurrence. Of course, my fist didn't have to punch someone just because I willed it. Yet, it does anyway, I can predict it and that's all that matters for moral responsibility.

If predictability is all that is required for moral responsibility, then technically robots could be held morally responsible for their actions (if they are programmed to be "aware" of themselves and of their actions). Based on sensory input and their own programing, they can predict the effects of their next action, thus becoming morally responsible for their actions.

If you know that your fist doesn't have to punch someone, then how can you predict that it will?

Sorry for bolding up the quote, but my response is to a very specific statement you've made (the one in bold):

You've objected to both "the free will advocate" and the "determinist," but stevecook172001 represents neither:

However, in terms of free will, the above is of little comfort since the predictable determinism of classical theory is merely replaced with the non-predictable determinism of quantum theory. There is still no place for free will.

As I understand it, stevecook172001 is basically saying, "random or determined, there's still no room for free will." A significant aspect of free will is that it gives the agent in possession of it control, and both determinism and randomness provide zero control. Unless you can show that randomness and/or determinism are not the only possible origins for an event, you can't get past the fact that there simply is no room for free will. The question changes from "Do we have free will? to "Is free will even a coherent concept?"

Magic thinking out of sheer modern ignorance is simply unacceptable...oh well, but then maybe, you just randomly believe in randomness, not all is lost !

I wish someone could clearly explain to me what in the hell does random even mean...random in what sense ?