Is free-will an illusion?

Very definitely.

Okay so Brian played the semantic card and lost. Now he's about to discover that he isn't a determinist after all... :-)

I've provided the definition for determinism that I use (behavioral phenomena occur for natural and lawful reasons). Behavior change does not occur in the manner that cause and effect relations occur in physics and chemistry. To imply that a given behavior has a singular cause bears no relationship to the data. So when one argues that every effect has a cause, and that one can theoretically trace the causes back to the big bang is an interesting thought experiment, but one that I think is better placed in the physical sciences and not the biological sciences.

The myriad of functional relations between environment and behavior and the fundamental mechanisms that have been discovered to explain how behavior comes under environmental control, for many, has been a rather convincing demonstration of the deterministic manner with which behavior functions. When, through experimentation, behavior changes only when environmental variables are manipulated, and the effects are repeated, then it is up to those that look at the data to find possible threats to internal validity. Until they are found it should not be assumed that they exist.

So, if I believe that everything we do has been pre-determined, then why make efforts for better outcomes? I'm putting it plainly that I think it's possible to effect different outcomes.

If you reject the idea that you and I were destined to have this exchange from as far back as the big bang, you are not a determinist, by the generally accepted definition of the term.

And still there are entire fields of science that use this definition

So, regardless of other definitions you find, do you accept that behavior occurs for lawful reasons?

Correct.

The definition of determinism is not up for grabs, nor vague. I provided it, you provided it, everybody can check it up... It is very clear, and it is clear that you are not determinist...

Or perhaps you are a determinist that hasn't yet measured the consequences of his philosophical positions, one of which is that time -- all the time -- is always wasted. It brings no novelty whatsoever, as everything that ever happens was predetermined at the time of the big bang. As I think Fil put it once, a determinist universe is "frozen in time".

As for your question, I am not sure what "lawful reasons" mean or what an unlawful reason would be... What law are we talking about here, promulgated by whom????

Let me tell you what I believe in.

a. I believe the human mind is not an epiphonomenon nor a "ghost" nor a miracle, but a natural and very important phenomenon that will ultimately be explained by science as a fonction of the brain or more generally, as a function of the human body.

b. I believe that the human mind "writes itself down" on the brain as much as it is "built up" or "supported" by the brain. Something like "mind over matter over mind", a two-way street between mind and brain. Or perhaps something like the wave-particle duality. Nothing simplistic or reductionist in any case.

c. I believe there is an element of randomness in this world, which makes the future undetermined. This randomness is not limited to the quantic world but permeates everything, including the mind, which is therefore not entirely predetermined in its deliberations, although I agree that most people are by and large predictable (some more than others).

d. I believe that human intuition works in a darwinian way, i.e. that it combines the random invention of new ideas with a selection process that picks up those new ideas that can be useful, and that this unpredictable, darwinian and largely unconscious process is the source of all our ideas and creativity.

e. I believe that "free will" is an almost useless concept, and that we cannot really will to will what we would want to will, if you see what I mean... I prefer "libre arbitre" (free choice) which is much clearer, or just "agency". "Agency" derives from point b above.

You're really going to play this old word game? Typical anti-science rhetoric.

You're talking points are also evolving

http://able2know.org/topic/196759-41#post-6041258




So which is it, a concept that serves us "decently well" or "an almost useless concept'? You seem to be all over the place in your descriptions.

Reason from ratio from measure from pattern from order. I don't know what kind of Determinism you are into but if implies doing otherwise it is at odds with all the other determinists I know including the leading experts on the area.

Don't talk to me like this. YOU are the one who tried to play word games right here and failed miserably...

There is no clear meaning to "lawful reasons" in this context. If you think it means something unequivocal, please explain what. I suspect you mean "natural reasons". Of course, that says little about what you consider natural or not. To me for instance, randomness is perfectly natural.

Yes, "free will" is poorly phrased. "Free choice" would be much better. Nevertheless, most people's understanding of "free will" is precisely "free choice". In other words, most people can go beyond the poor choice of words in "free will" and see that the concept means the capacity to chose, even if it's not what it literally says. It's a useful concept but expressed poorly.

Some people call it "free won't" i.e. the capacity to reject some options and prefer others.

Pretty basic...

Seen this on another thread. Amazing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfqO1U6lfDs

I think this is probably true. A science of behavior has shown that what people say and do can be treated as the subject of study without postulating other mechanisms at work. What people say and do comes under the control of the environment, but the environment is a complex set of conditions. Understanding how the environment can work on behavior leads to the possibility of adding design (i.e., constructing certain environmental arrangements). The design added, however, will be the result of past experiences. When given designs produce predictable and repeatable outcomes, then I think this fits with a deterministic view of the subject matter. The behavioral outcome did not occur by chance. The behavioral outcome did not occur for a metaphysical reason. The behavioral outcome did not occur for reasons other than the identified independent variables. What explanation other than determinism explains this?

Well...I was doing you the courtesy of not insinuating that you believe that there is an entity decreeing natural laws, or that you, for a moment, thought I might be referring to juridical laws. Perhaps you have also asked who has promulgated the laws of conservation? Maybe you also believe that there is an entity that will enforce sanctions if the laws of conservation are broken? So sorry that I didn't recognize the information-seeking nature of your question.

At least, judicial laws exist objectively and verifiably. You can't say that about the "laws of nature" which remain hypothetical. At best one can speak of the laws of nature as we hypothise them today.

True...but the general consensus of science is that it is appropriate to talk about these phenomena as laws given the high degree of repeatability of observed effects. I think that's the reason they are called laws in the first place. Isn't this right?

It's important to remember that the mind-body problem remains a problem: scientist don't know as yet what the solution is. If we knew, we could create true artificial intelligence, emulate the human mind in a machine.

The best I can say is: "I believe that the human mind WILL ONE DAY be understood by science as a natural, testable and replicable phenomenon." References to hypothetical entities such as "the laws of nature" is unnecessary and could even be dangerous, precisely because the "laws of nature" needed to explain the mind are yet UNKNOWN TO US. When you say: "behavioral phenomena occur for natural and lawful reasons", the word lawful is misleading and limits your field of enquiry to what we know today. "We don't understand how the mind (or free will) is possible, hence it's not possible" is an argument from ignorance.

It is a problem in the same way that you are living because of your elan vital. Apply Ockham's razor until there is sufficient evidence to extend the complexity of the account.

There are three significant philosophical problems that haven't been solved by science yet: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the human mind. Compared to those three massive problems, any other issue is a piece of cake, including free will and determinism.

The mind-body relation is an important problem to us because we all ARE minds and bodies -- including yourself -- and yet we don't have the slightest idea of what that thing called a mind really IS, and how it's made, and how it works. We are enigmas to ourselves. It's frustrating.

When you apply Ockham's razor to yourself, do you shave anything from the neck up, or do you try and spare your own head? :-)