What is free will?

@Olivier5,

That ought to be you weakest counter so far, look at internal consistence...evidence resides precisely in not using a discretionary point of view...the argument for authorship of free will is intrinsically deterministic so authorship can be considered...the very same token is required to question the authorship on the basis causal relations precede you to initial conditions...There is nothing new here, this is simply how science works...If you can't get the point being made that's is your problem perhaps reading twice would help.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

"Choices" are mental phenomena, illusions based on lacking absolute knowledge on the total conditions that will set what will happen...

Again, a pure hypothesis, a statement which we are supposed to believe based on what? Your word? Some famous public lecturer's word?

Why would mental facts be more illusionary than non-mental facts??? Is there even such a thing as a non-mental fact? A fact is an observation, and therefore it is a mental phenomenon, just like a choice is. Are you saying all facts are illusions? If not, why are you saying that about choices? What makes them different from facts?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

The categorization of "mental fact" is irrelevant for the argument, it just contextualizes the origin of the judgement, a "mental fact" needs not report to anything in the world other then itself...real illusions are still REAL existing mental wrong assumptions...address the argument please ! Free will authorship requires a deterministic model but does not take the model to its final consequences !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

All facts can't be illusions. The sun is an illusion? Is my wife and two sons illusions? Are my siblings all illusions? That I'm 78 years old is an illusion? Please explain.

That we are having a discussion on free will is an illusion?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

If you can't get the point being made that's is your problem perhaps reading twice would help.

Perhaps writing it down in decent English would help... If you don't respect your own opinions enough to write them down clearly, why should anyone else care to decipher them?

Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to help you make your point... and present evidence for it. I think it would help you realize you don't have that much evidence. What you have, as always, are aesthetic concerns, such as reaching an "elegant theory" and respecting the facts is secondary to that. For a guy who complained that the French like to go the right brain route, you seem a bit too attached to issues of elegance and form. You should ignore your right brain more often and concentrate on facts.

E.g. treating all mental phenomena as illusions is basically ignoring the evidence they provide...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Read back, it was edited my last post, and please address the problem or concede !

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Your own definition of knowledge leads to free will. You admitted that they are such things as choices, that they mattered, and that they are facilitated or supported by knowledge. That's precisely what I call free will: the determination of choices by a subject based on his or her own knowledge.

No it does not. It is your bias that forces you to think that. A choice is a mental phenomenon where you have experience of selecting something from a group of options. A human selection process has its own baggage like reasons, and human mental phenomena. But it boils down to a selection of one thing out of a group. The reason choices matter is that they affect me. And can potentially cause myself or others pain if I make bad choices. Free will has nothing to do with it. If all that is required for you to have free will is that choices matter and that they are supported by the knowledge you have acquired, then let me be the first determinist to say you have free will (by your definition). But that definition is compatible with determinism.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Free will authorship requires a deterministic model but does not take the model to its final consequences !

It does not require anything in terms of determinist or non-determinist metaphysics. All it requires is that ideas have causal consequences. The existence of cause-to-effect relationships does not imply that these relationships are determinist, not does it follow from this that the world is entirely determined from the time of the big bang to the next big crunch. Cause to effect relationships can be probabilistic ("smoking increase your chances of cancer by X%") and their domain of influence could be partial...

Finally, as I have said zillion times already, if ideas are determined by prior ideas, that's a form of freedom. It's probably the only freedom we'll ever get: to be constrained by your own thoughts, by your own knowledge, or lack thereof, is to be free, because your thoughts are you.

For the mind, to be, at least in part, self-determined is to be free.

1 Reply

@tomr,

Quote:

But that definition is compatible with determinism.

I know it is, have been saying this for the past few days to no avail...

It is however incompatible with what I call materialist determinism, ie the idea that matter determines minds entirely.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Who said all "mental facts" are illusions ??? What was said is that mental facts by definition need not correspond to anything in the world other then themselves...some mental facts can describe things in the world, the Sun, your sons n so on, other mental facts like the Flying Spaghetti Monster do not correspond but still are mental facts...by definition mental facts can be illusory when reporting the world and not illusory in the sense that they are real mind made miss conceptual referents to reality, ILLUSIONS.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

oh dear, probability is merely a tentative predictive model, it does not explain processes... Free will modelling by definition requires a deterministic model to establish authorship of will... bye bye now there is nothing left to debate with you . Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

This is what I picked up from Olivier's post.
You wrote,

Quote:

"Choices" are mental phenomena, illusions based on lacking absolute knowledge on the total conditions that will set what will happen...

Thus, my response.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Still, very poor English, which points to poor conceptualization.

Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement
et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément.
(Boileau)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Well, you probably didn't have a point then.. Keep pretending. Bye bye for now...

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I know it is, have been saying this for the past few days to no avail...

It is however incompatible with what I call materialist determinism, ie the idea that matter determines minds entirely.

No your definition is compatible with the most nasty form of materialist determinism imaginable. On a side note, after all that talk explaining how reductionism is the only right and logical course and how little things must give big things their properties entirely, you can still sit there with not one lick of evidence and think that there is room for your mind to be independent of the particles that make it up. That is incredible!

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Your problem is not my English my argument is consensual all across the board...your problem is 10 or 20 IQ points under what is needed to get it...in fact my explanation couldn't be any clearer as it is exactly the same you can read in any classical argument against indeterminism being a valid source for free will advocates...

1 Reply

@tomr,

I wish he could explain if he ever could without totally making a fool out of himself how a probability model cannot be at odds with authorship of will...
Just do the mental experience... say for instance, the reasoning under the assumption that there is a probability my mind is creating or not creating the thought I am experiencing right now...either I did it or I cannot establish I am willing anything. That simple. Probabilistic models by definition don't explain or JUSTIFY anything, they merely try to predict behaviour. Free will IS an explanatory model and a well know deterministic one. Ignorance on the general characteristics of the argument has nothing to do with my better or worse English...but the problem here is not merely ignorance as the argument was not just invoked but explained around 5 or 6 times now... Laughing

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I would just like to forget probability altogether. It would be better if we just called it guesswork which is what it really is. But if that's the case he is trying to build then buy all means go ahead. I am just tired of the free will assumption. I was probably 16 years old when I abandoned the idea. I guess some people need it more than others. Like a belief in God. I do associate that kind of thinking with religious belief for two reasons. One, it is completely without evidence. Two, the idea makes you special or better than everything else, and it feels good to know your special. Razz

2 Replies

@tomr,

My problem is not with his particular mental needs regarding free will I am a laissez faire laissez passer kind of guy...my problem was with his presumptuous march upon my poor English without caring to notice I had a strong point...Its called lack of perception.

0 Replies

@tomr,

I think you are pretty incredible too, Tom, in your own way. You start this discussion like a normal discussion, and then post after post, you become more and more aggressive and contemptuous. Why? Is that a problem for you if I don't share your opinions, or is your aggressiveness a sign of despair?

You can repeat your reductionist mantra as much as you want, I am still entitled to my opinion. Sorry if that bothers you.

1 Reply

What is free will?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know