Trick of the Language?

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Sorry to hear about your loved one. You have my best wishes in regard to his/her recovery and your fortitude in dealing with the crisis.

She's recovering well at this point, thank you for your kind words Smile

I talked about my definition of free will a couple pages back, but of course it's easy to miss these things:

Quote:

Whichever way you examine it free will ultimately postulates an uncaused event, requires magical thinking, and/or posits a ghost in the machine between our experiences and genes which could account for unconstrained choice.

And there's another thing: unconstrained choice must surely be impossible? That's written into the definition of the word.

Funnily enough it seems our definitions align rather closely, particularly where bolded above. What I find very interesting is the fact that you (and other compatibilists of your stripe) don't see the absence of causation as problematic.

Quote:

It has to do with "emergent" behaviors even within deterministic models (computer models).

Reposing your faith in free will here will still leave you susceptible to god-of-the-gaps style criticisms, I think. Emergent behaviour, from what I understand of it, seems to be little different to some of what georgeob1 has been saying about insoluble problems in science and basic unpredictability, equating them to freedom. The universe may not be straightforwardly deterministic, but elements of randomness leave no room for freedom either.

For the sake of discussion, why don't we move away from things like "computational models" "determinism" and "mathematical systems", and talk about how we might justify our belief (or unbelief) in free will in human terms?

1 Reply

@medium-density,

Quote:

For the sake of discussion, why don't we move away from things like "computational models" "determinism" and "mathematical systems", and talk about how we might justify our belief (or unbelief) in free will in human terms?

Excellent question.
This perhaps gets at more of my intent when I asked what does "free will" mean to you. What are the "human terms" you would like it to be related to?
A notion of personal responsibility?
A notion of personal liberty (maybe from destiny/or genetics/ or environment)?
I think as perhaps the more 'deconstructionist' respondents have pointed out these are very complex interactions of notions. I don't think that they are 'unreal' however because they are complex.
Would you like to pick a more "human" conception that we can relate it back to?

2 Replies

@medium-density,

Quote:

1. I'm talking about the statement we've been discussing which appears in my original post which started the thread.

Okay Med, I presume

All events leading up to an action can influence whether or not that action is realised…...nanoseconds before something happens, it can be averted…...A nanosecond after that…...same action can be viewed as having been inevitable…...Doesn't look unlikely to me. In fact if I understand it correctly it looks pretty obvious. But it doesn't seem to address determinism, at least as I understand the term

Quote:

3. I would probably define determinism as the view that, in principle, the universe is predictable

Some's predictable to be sure but it's pretty well established some's not.

Quote:

and runs according to laws of causation.

Sure

Quote:

I.e. if you could freeze frame the universe and could know the position of every atom then you would be able…...to predict their next move.

I'm not quite sure. My own view is, if I could travel to noon yesterday would noon today be exactly the same

The determinist says yes but I doubt it myself very strongly, intuitively

0 Replies

@medium-density,

Damn again they cut me off in the middle of a thought

Quote:

what keeps you from fully embracing determinism as defined by me in this post?

Forgive an old guy not quite sure of anything, Med, but by "post" do you mean "thread" and if so on what page, and which posting

You may ID it by its last three digits

1 Reply

@medium-density,

No...think a bit. Realization of what we call "appearance" is later inter-actional state to that of the original seamless "flow". It is a new gestalt involving "self+world", it is not merely about "world". In Heideggarian terms original "affordances" (subconscious expectations) have failed to be fulfilled. Only at that point do "self" and "world" become co-manifested to assess the situation.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

I believe that in the individual human terms you suggested "free will" is more like thoughtful volition, something all people can do and exercise but which many or most don't do very often. It's the difference between making goal-seeking choices, as opposed to surrendering to passing appetites; Choosing to increase your knowledge or understanding of something that strikes your curiosity, as opposed to watching TV and eating chips; Deciding to work out when one is in the grip of the "lazies".

It also involves choosing to do something good for a loved one, even when one might prefer something else.

I recognize that many such actions are sometimes seen as a result of compulsions or some neurotic need for guilt/punnishment/ self-esteem or whatever. In some cases that may be true. However, I think we all have a sense of when we are acting purposefully, not merely responding to appetites, and other times when we do. Much has been written about some people who have behaved in this way far more than most. They are called by many names in different cultures, not all good.

Certainly this aspect of behavior, when it occurs, is a good deal less predictable in terms of observed social & cultural norms than appetite led behavior and choices. Whether that proves that it is truly free, in the sense dicussed a few pages back, may be arguable. However, I think there is little doubt that it is observably different from the alternative and merits a distinction of some sort.

I think this is related to the observable facts that some people seriously sddicted to drugs or alcohol, even at a serious stage, find the will to give it up, while many don't. It's also probably related to some of the unusual survival stories out there about people in desperate physical stress- some endure, some don't. There were many studies made about the varieties of behavior of POWs in North Vietnam ( a subject of some interest to me in that I was flying A-6 Intruders there). Some gave up and died; others endured prolongued torture and isolation, but ended up indirectly running the camps and psychologically controlling their "controllers". Jim Stockdale is the best known example..

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Thank you George,
This does seem like a great jumping off point for a more human/psychological discussion of free will. Your description of "thoughtful volition" reminds me of Maslow's self-actualization. I did a quick little refresher (looked it up on Wikipedia) and noticed that he derived his concept of actualization from Kurt Goldstein who formulated much of his theories from study of traumatic brain injuries in war (WWII). I wonder if this might suggest that there is some (actualizing/will) that survives even major assaults to human brains (evidently the substrate of our consciousness).
I worked with a trauma ICU surgeon who also served in Afghanistan recently. According to him we should expect to see quite a bit of new data regarding the cognitive effects of TBI. I wonder if this will add more credence to your notion of "thoughtful volition".
Subjectively I can certainly attest to the volition you speak of. I recently quit smoking cigarettes which certainly feels like an act of will.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Certainly this aspect of behavior, when it occurs, is a good deal less predictable in terms of observed social & cultural norms than appetite led behavior and choices.

This seems, at least intuitively, to match the expectations for an emergent system.
There are some motivation studies highlighting the benefits of intrinsic motivators much in alignment with your view of volition-behaviors.
http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb3.php For one.
This study shows that "interesting work" is the number one motivator. This above number two, "good wages". Maybe we(humans) work better when we are encouraged to be volitional rather than appetite-driven.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

One way to make this a more direct discussion of what free will means in human terms is to talk about choice. The question to ask about choices is: Do we make them because of any reason other than they are what seem the best thing to do in that moment? Is there a reason or cause other than motivations based on character (I like to read books on moral philosophy), salient goals (I need to decide what I think about moral issue X), necessities of existence (I have to put the book down; I'm late for work/I have to pick this book up; I'm reading it for a class), pro-social provocations (My good friend recommended this book).... while this list is far from exhaustive I think I'm beginning to make the point that any and all imaginable causes for a choice all have the same implications for that choice: Namely, that it wasn't made freely, and further that it definitionally could not be made freely. The nature of choice is weighing up two or more courses of action in the teeth of their projected outcomes, and there is never a choice which doesn't have even the tiniest of consequences, so therefore freedom of will is precluded from the very start.

When georgeob1 talks about "thoughtful volition" that is merely a sort of distinction between virtuous and unvirtuous will. There are indeed short and longterm motivations, and often the horizon is ignored in favour of the cheap and immediate pleasures of the here and now. So yes, differences in expressions of will exist. Will exists, but freedom of it cannot.

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

I'm defining determinism as the view that things are caused, nothing more. However, I'm much less well-equipped to apply this meaning universally, meaning that I'm reasonably comfortable talking about free will/determinism in the human sphere, but in terms of the implications for the wider universe and stellar phenomena I need to tread very carefully indeed.

So, quantum indeterminism may well be true, but you still cannot derive free will from it. Randomness is not equivalent to freedom. I think we've agreed on this point earlier on in the discussion.

Perhaps all this makes me a social determinist? I'm certainly a determined determinist, in at least two (paradoxical) senses...

1 Reply

@medium-density,

Quote:

I'm defining determinism as the view that things are caused, nothing more.

Very interesting sidelight, Med: Logic asserts that the Universe itself wasn't caused, it's here and always has been because it has to be; while everything taking place within is, as you say, caused

Quote:

However…….I'm reasonably comfortable talking about free will/determinism in the human sphere,

Violation of the general principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else. If we have free will so do mice and microorganisms; finally, a grain of sand or a molecule

Quote:

but in terms of the implications for the wider universe and stellar phenomena I need to tread very carefully indeed.

Indeed

Quote:

So, quantum indeterminism may well be true, but you still cannot derive free will from it.

No you sure as hell can't

Quote:

Randomness is not equivalent to freedom.

No it sure as hell isn't

Quote:

I think we've agreed on this point earlier on in the discussion.

Have to take your word for that, Med

Quote:

Perhaps all this makes me a social determinist? I'm certainly a determined determinist, in at least two (paradoxical) senses...

Let's hear them

1 Reply

@medium-density,

medium-density wrote:

When georgeob1 talks about "thoughtful volition" that is merely a sort of distinction between virtuous and unvirtuous will. There are indeed short and longterm motivations, and often the horizon is ignored in favour of the cheap and immediate pleasures of the here and now. So yes, differences in expressions of will exist. Will exists, but freedom of it cannot.

That's a moderately interesting tautology, clothed as an unprovable postulate, one you have asserted here several times already. However, it is not an argument or a proof. It is not even an insight supportable by observation. Finally there is very good reason to believe that it cannot even be tested or observed.

1 Reply

@medium-density,

Quote:

Will exists, but freedom of it cannot.

I don't mean this to sound trite, MD, but I feel like you keep moving the ball.
Would you like to discuss freedom?
We can certainly discuss that in terms of psychology, philosophy, or even by means of abstractions (models).
I guess just tell us what you want to talk about, and what you consider valid domains of reasoning.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Very interesting sidelight, Med: Logic asserts that the Universe itself wasn't caused, it's here and always has been because it has to be; while everything taking place within is, as you say, caused

My understanding was that the question of whether or not the universe is timeless was an open one... isn't the big bang theory more than a television programme?

Quote:

Violation of the general principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else. If we have free will so do mice and microorganisms; finally, a grain of sand or a molecule

This seems a rather idiosyncratic thing to assert, what's your reason for believing in this principle? It seems difficult to wrap around the concept of free will at least, since will must be the private enclave of conscious creatures. So, mice perhaps. Microorganisms/grains of sand/molecules, much less likely. And, for the purposes of this discussion, why bother going beyond the human sphere? Since there's so little we know about the state of consciousness in other creatures it makes sense to limit our remarks to homo sapiens.

Quote:

Quote:
Perhaps all this makes me a social determinist? I'm certainly a determined determinist, in at least two (paradoxical) senses...

Let's hear them

Since you ask, I'm a determined determinist in that it's a personal belief I strongly, even stubbornly hold, and I'm a determined determinst by definition. Since I believe in determinism everything is determined according to that view, even the deterministic outlook itself. These are in contradiction because saying I'm stubborn in my strong beliefs seems to belie a choice about having them in the first place.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

That's a moderately interesting tautology, clothed as an unprovable postulate, one you have asserted here several times already. However, it is not an argument or a proof. It is not even an insight supportable by observation. Finally there is very good reason to believe that it cannot even be tested or observed.

From the portion of text you quoted I assume the moderately interesting tautology clothed as an unprovable postulate which I have asserted several times but which is not an argument or proof or even an insight supportable by observation is that "Will exists, but freedom of it cannot"?

The italicised statement was the sum or precis of a wider argument which I've made several times because I've yet to see anyone take on the points directly. While I would never claim it is provable I think what I've broadly contended amounts to an argument. I think my observations on choice in the post you quoted from support what I say. Feel free to re-read them.

Feel freer to argue against them. Is choice not always constrained? Where is this freedom you subscribe to supposed to come from?

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

I don't mean this to sound trite, MD, but I feel like you keep moving the ball.
Would you like to discuss freedom?
We can certainly discuss that in terms of psychology, philosophy, or even by means of abstractions (models).
I guess just tell us what you want to talk about, and what you consider valid domains of reasoning.

I'm sorry you feel that I'm moving the ball on this. Sorrier still that I'm at a loss to account for this impression...

Would I like to discuss freedom? Freedom of will, yes. Or are you arguing that free will does not amount to freedom of will? I've heard stranger arguments, most of them from fresco.

I thought we were making progress in the discussion by bringing things into the human sphere, away from models and physics etc. I thought it would be reasonable to talk about choice as a human domain. It seems my comments in that area have not been appreciated. Perhaps there is nothing in them to be appreciated, in which case they require revision, or perhaps restating.

I don't want to be overly-prescriptive in this discussion, despite previous overtures against the kind of rhetoric fresco deals in. Just tell me how it is you have come to believe that free will exists in humans. Perhaps begin by clearing up whether you think freedom has anything to do with it, and if not why not.

1 Reply

@medium-density,

Quote:
[Universe]…….wasn't caused, …... always has been…..everything taking place…...caused

Quote:

My understanding was that the question of whether or not the universe is timeless was an open one…

Yes. Was merely offering logical speculation

Quote:

isn't the big bang theory more than a television programme?

Yes, it's taken very seriously but how does this figure into the issue, Med

Quote:
Violation of …..nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else. If we have free will so do mice…...or a molecule

Quote:

This seems a rather idiosyncratic thing to assert, what's your reason for believing in this principle?

Everything seems to work out that way

Quote:

It seems difficult to wrap around the concept of free will at least, since will must be the private enclave of conscious creatures.

Then you have to draw the line where consciousness on the left and none to the right. Of course that's done every day by everyone, it has to be for ordinary purposes of communication; but that line is always in an arbitrary spot

Quote:

So, mice perhaps. Microorganisms/grains of sand/molecules, much less likely.

Very true, in everyday terms

Quote:

And, for the purposes of this discussion, why bother going beyond the human sphere?

The process of consideration might reveal something about freewill

Quote:

Since there's so little we know about the state of consciousness in other creatures it makes sense to limit our remarks to homo sapiens.

Of course you're quite welcome to do so but it might limit your horizons

Quote:

Perhaps all this makes me a social determinist? I'm certainly a determined determinist, in at least two (paradoxical) senses...

Let's hear them

Quote:

…….., and I'm a determined determinst by definition.

Okay but of course the term has different meanings to different folk

Quote:

Since I believe in determinism everything is determined according to that view, even the deterministic outlook itself.

Okay so it's all laid out in advance forever. I'd call it absolute determinism. Still not sure wherein lies the paradox

Quote:

These are in contradiction because saying I'm stubborn in my strong beliefs seems to belie a choice about having them in the first place.

Sorry Med, don't follow you at all. First of all, to what does "These" refer

And aren't both the choice and the the stubbornness themselves also predetermined

I see no contradiction whatever

1 Reply

@medium-density,

Thanks for your patience Med Very Happy

I get the impression that you feel as though human behavior is completely constrained. That there are ultimately no decisions to make, that we are trapped in doing whatever the (self+subconscious+environment) most "want's"/"has" to do.
The only way this could even potentially be true is if you view time as completely linear and reversible. Not an arrow of time, but a time line. Deterministic and non-deterministic models of reality don't work that way. Deterministic models don't work that way due to entropy (among other things).
Non-deterministic models don't work that way because there is no "set in stone" future.
That is basically the problem I see, and the impasse I am at in discussing free will in the way you seem to want to.
You seem to take for granted things that I can't conceive of being true (physically).

1 Reply

@medium-density,

medium-density wrote:

Since you ask, I'm a determined determinist in that it's a personal belief I strongly, even stubbornly hold, and I'm a determined determinst by definition. Since I believe in determinism everything is determined according to that view, even the deterministic outlook itself. These are in contradiction because saying I'm stubborn in my strong beliefs seems to belie a choice about having them in the first place.

Well I certainly agree with your acknowledgment of the several contradictions in that statement. However, one appears to overwhelm all the others, namely what agent is it that you believe determines the unfolding course of the universe?

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

The process of consideration might reveal something about freewill

Perhaps you have something more to say on this? For myself I don't feel much sensible talk can be had on the subject of free will outside the human sphere.

Quote:

And aren't both the choice and the the stubbornness themselves also predetermined

I'm saying that choosing to be stubborn about being a determinist, or at any rate feeling that I pursue the argument with determination and strong resolve, is something of an illusion, and contradicts the very deterministic beliefs I espouse. However the "I'm a determined determinist in two (paradoxical) ways" statement was only intended as a frippery. I wouldn't get too hung up on it Smile

0 Replies

Trick of the Language?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know