What is free will?

@Olivier5,

oh dear...justification here STANDS for MECHANICAL JUSTIFICATION !!!
Not metaphysical the WHY type justification !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I don't care about 'almost no one using this or that argument'. Are you making statistical inferences based on opinion polls now?

Beside, plenty of people use inderterminism as a background for free will. Stop dreaming.

What point? I told you already all you need to know. If ideas behave causaly, then there is free will, because those ideas that take decisions in my mind are ME. I don't need 100% self-control to be me, and to stand by my choices.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I don't care about 'almost no one using this or that argument'. Are you making statistical inferences based on opinion polls now?

Beside, plenty of people use inderterminism as a background for free will. Stop dreaming.

What point? I told you already all you need to know. If ideas behave causaly, then there is free will, because those ideas that take decisions in my mind are ME. I don't need 100% self-control to be me, and to stand by my choices.

What ? so your best argument is that those ideas are "you" ? I thought the point was to ask if you could or could not have done otherwise...almost no one gives the compatiblist justification because that is not what most people intend to mean with free willing...

...Dennet the old fox, is indeed very careful, he does not deny determinism nor does he suggest you could have done otherwise...instead he says exactly what all compatiblists say...it still is "me" in there... but the point is if you do a public poll survey that is not what almost every common Joe intends to mean when he says he has free will...

The counter argument made is precisely that if you don't get to decide how much is "you" or how powerful is your computing reasoning nor its dynamics then the "you" you are being its not up to you...you are just going through the motions..

3 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Dennett is a charlatan, like most people you youtube us with... My main references are Popper and Bergson. Sorry, they never posted on youtube...

Quote:

What ? so your best argument is that those ideas are "you" ? I thought the point was to ask if you could or could not have done otherwise.

You thought wrong, as usual. A very confused individual, you are.

Note the difference with the classic compatibilist view though: I don't identify with my neurons, only with my ideas. As long as my psychological self -- rather than neuronal self -- is behaving causally, then 'I' cause things to happen,

'I' chose. Not my neurons.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

The thing is:

Undetermined set of possibilities randomly arising does not account for decision making only accounts how different possibilities for action arise.
The Deterministic decision making needed for responsibility to be in place necessarily states you would time and again do the same choice given the same circumstances were in place...Dennet's position is thus Deterministic compatiblist. He clearly understands why undetermined arising of possibilities does not change the argument when decision making comes to play...because from that moment on you WILL need a deterministic account at work to justify choice being done by you always not randomly or by probability.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

No YOU are a charlatan who don't get to grasp the BEST atm arguments in favour of free will...Dennet is atm the BEST free will advocates have to offer fool ! You are indeed an ignoramus mystifier who don't even get to know the best you've got on your side. Now please address my very crystal clear point presented in my last post or I will consider you a trolling idiot n quit conversation with you altogether.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You're a sore loser looking for an excuse to quit.

Forgot determinism. It's a dead end. Random generation of ideas coupled with non-random (eg logical, rational, emotional or aesthetic) selection among those ideas is a good Darwinian model to explain (modest) free will. Going the Darwinian route is also interesting because such systems can self-organise, thus possibly explain the emergence of knowledge and conscience without requiring the hypothesis of a god or universal determinism. Thanks to Darwinism, we can use Occam's razor to show that God is an unnecessary hypothesis, just like absolute determinism is unnecessary. Things emerge, including in your mind, and including haphazardly. The future is not written, it's wide open. It's what you make of it.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Idiot....

...selection of ideas by an agent is ALWAYS deterministic....this is not open for debate by anyone anywhere !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

No, it's not, one can think of cases where the complexity of the issue is such that the decision is not predetermined. But even if it was, so what???? Will it be less of your decision, if another one was possible?

DETERMINISM IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.

The title of this thread should be : Are one-trick-donkeys free? The answer is evidently no: it takes more smarts, open-mindedness and creativity than you will ever have to be free.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Hey moron do you get the argument that if YOU are deciding the action you are causing the action ? And that if YOU don't get to decide the ACTION you are not CAUSING the action...Jesus mother of Christ how dumb can you possibly go ???

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...IF and WHEN you are NOT CAUSING the action then you are not causing the action...either chance or YOU are CAUSING the damn action...CHOICE necessarily implies a DIRECT INPUT from the agent...this is consensual you freaking IDIOT !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I don't know how dumb you can go, but apparently quite a lot.

I (my ideas, knowledge, emotions, desires) decide. I chose. I cause. I am free from external determination, at least partly so.

Let's leave it at that because I can bring the one-trick-donkey to the fresh and pure waters of free will, but can't make it drink. Guess the donkey's just too afraid of responsibility and freedom...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I don't know how dumb you can go, but apparently quite a lot.

I (my ideas, knowledge, emotions, desires) decide. I chose. I cause. I am free from external determination, at least partly so.

Let's leave it at that because I can bring the one-trick-donkey to the fresh and pure waters of free will, but can't make it drink. Guess the donkey's just too afraid of responsibility and freedom...

******* idiot...if you are causing the action then you are applying a deterministic model... Laughing

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

You're always talking about the physical brain while humans react to the external environment. When the environment changes, the options change. You can't get around this simple fact. The environment for all humans change from minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day, year to year...so forth, and so on.

It's the same brain, except it has been exposed to more experiences and perceptions - that are all subjective to the individual. That's how humans select future choices from the "increased" knowledge.

It boils down to genes and environment, not how the physical brain operates. Simply put, it's the chemicals in the brain that sends messages of our unique subjective choices based on our own experiences and perceptions.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Simply put, it's the chemicals in the brain that sends messages of our unique subjective choices based on our own experiences and perceptions.

No...Simply put, the chemicals in the brain that sends messages of our unique subjective choices based on our own experiences and perceptions demonstrate a deterministic mechanistic causal operative process unfolding.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

But it's never one set of circumstances or only one option.
If that were the case, why did you choose to sit at your computer to post on a2k?

The "conditions" is your environment. You have choices whether you wish to admit that or not.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Darwanism is about evolution; it's about survival.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Darwinism is a CAUSAL deterministic theory where ADAPTATION or LACK of it directly HAS CONSEQUENCES which are not random!!! Do you want to go into a BIOLOGY Forum and ask an expert ????

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

If there is not free will, how is it that people go to the polls to vote for one candidate over the other? It's because human perception is subjective, and our perceptions differ. We all have beliefs based on our subjective perceptions of what we believe to be the better choice. That's what humans do on almost every action we take. The results of human activity proves free will. Look around you, and point out to me who's actions prove predeterminism?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Just where is written that polls are proof of free will ? Polls are proof of willing not free will ! Nobody is making a case against will per se. If anything polls can predict very well what a group will do.

0 Replies

What is free will?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know