Defining Free Will

[Willamena]

How do you describe hard indeterminism?

Determinism is an explanation of everything ("the world") with its roots in the idea that "everything has sufficient reason for being as it is." Hard indeterminism does not deny determinism, though other forms of indeterminism might, it simply states that there is not sufficient reason to explain everything (the world) --that determinism isn't the answer. Hard indeterminism recognizes that there are things that both determinism and chance are insufficient to explain.

I'm no expert on physics, but Chaos Theory and the Butterfly Effect are quoted in example.

 

[Thief]

Webster reflects traditional usage, and the traditional concept of free will is indeed unclear at best.

So you're declaration is the new standard?...and some people call me arrogant.

If we are aiming to useful definitions, quoting Webster is of no use, sorry.

Dismissing a standard just so you can have your 'debate'?

As for "twisting my perspective", that is a loaded choice of words for what amounts to doing what a debate area is supposed to exist for. Better luck with your next bluff, pal.

Definiton by Webster's is not a bluff....on their part ....or mine.

 

[Willamena]

A "traditional" definition of free will:

To have free will is to have what it takes to act freely. When an agent acts freely—when she exercises her free will—what she does is up to her. A plurality of alternatives is open to her, and she determines which she pursues. When she does, she is an ultimate source or origin of her action. So runs a familiar conception of free will.
Incompatibilist (Nondeterministic) Theories of Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[LuisDantas]

A "traditional" definition of free will:

Taken at face value, that concept is not only unrealistic, but in fact unavailable even to most deities of myth. It takes an Abrahamic-styled God to have that kind of free will. And even that is arguable.

 

[LuisDantas]

Definiton by Webster's is not a bluff....on their part ....or mine.

Stop wasting our time.

 

[Willamena]

Taken at face value, that concept is not only unrealistic, but in fact unavailable even to most deities of myth. It takes an Abrahamic-styled God to have that kind of free will. And even that is arguable.

"Unavailable"?

 

[LuisDantas]

"Unavailable"?

Yep.

If free will is the ability to act freely, then it is unavailable in the real world, since our actions are subject to so many constraints.

Since my last post it occurred to me that even the Christian God is supposed to lack that free will, at least if we accept the doctrine that he had to sacrifice his own son to attone for humanity's mistakes. That implies that he could not choose to act freely either - he had to pay a price to modify circunstances.

One could conceive a world where free will exists. But it would be a very hypothetical world, one where actions are always available and unhindered by circunstances - which is to say, probably a very boring world in its constant freedom of choice.

 

[Willamena]

If free will is the ability to act freely, then it is unavailable in the real world, since our actions are subject to so many constraints.

Why are "constraints" significant? They don't impact the description given above.

 

[Thief]

Yep.

If free will is the ability to act freely, then it is unavailable in the real world, since our actions are subject to so many constraints.

You are assuming constraint at every gesture.
Too much assumption.

Since my last post it occurred to me that even the Christian God is supposed to lack that free will, at least if we accept the doctrine that he had to sacrifice his own son to attone for humanity's mistakes. That implies that he could not choose to act freely either - he had to pay a price to modify circunstances.

One could conceive a world where free will exists. But it would be a very hypothetical world, one where actions are always available and unhindered by circunstances - which is to say, probably a very boring world in its constant freedom of choice.

Freedom of choice...boring?

I think you've lost your mind.

And not all believers in God, believe the Christian doctrine of scapegoating.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why are "constraints" significant? They don't impact the description given above.

How can you say that? They negate it lock, stock and barrel.

To have free will is to have what it takes to act freely. When an agent acts freely—when she exercises her free will—what she does is up to her. A plurality of alternatives is open to her, and she determines which she pursues. When she does, she is an ultimate source or origin of her action. So runs a familiar conception of free will.

Those two parts in red, particularly the first, do not happen in the real world. Hence, free will, by that definition, is not something that exists.

 

[Willamena]

How can you say that? They negate it lock, stock and barrel.

How do you get that? :help:

 

[Thief]

How can you say that? They negate it lock, stock and barrel.



Those two parts in red, particularly the first, do not happen in the real world. Hence, free will, by that definition, is not something that exists.

Choice is all it takes.

Choice is not continual....sometimes there is only one task at hand.
Sometimes hesitation is not the way to go.
You go forward, whether you 'want' to or not.

But anytime the option is yours....there it is....freewill.

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you get that? :help:

I have just explained it in my previous post: if having free will is having what it takes to act freely, then actual beings (either human or divine) don't have and can't even hypothetically have it, since we don't have what it takes to act freely.

It is a direct application of the very concept you presented. What am I missing?

 

[LuisDantas]

Choice is all it takes.

Choice is not continual....sometimes there is only one task at hand.
Sometimes hesitation is not the way to go.
You go forward, whether you 'want' to or not.

But anytime the option is yours....there it is....freewill.

Choice is choice. You may call it free will, I suppose. It will not make it free.

 

[Thief]

I have just explained it in my previous post: if having free will is having what it takes to act freely, then actual beings (either human or divine) don't have and can't even hypothetically have it, since we don't have what it takes to act freely.

It is a direct application of the very concept you presented. What am I missing?

The humility to admit when you're wrong.

 

[LuisDantas]

The humility to admit when you're wrong.

What that is relevant to the matter at hand, I mean?

 

[Willamena]

I have just explained it in my previous post: if having free will is having what it takes to act freely, then actual beings (either human or divine) don't have and can't even hypothetically have it, since we don't have what it takes to act freely.

It is a direct application of the very concept you presented. What am I missing?

You're missing what it means to "act freely," according to the definition above.

 

[LuisDantas]

You're missing what it means to "act freely," according to the definition above.

So it is not meant to be taken at face value, as I supposed.

But then, what IS it supposed to mean, and why can't it be stated in a straight way?




Let me try another approach: if all it takes to say that one has free will is some kind of choice, then does a bank teller machine (which chooses whether or not to accept the password I give it) have free will? Why or why not?

 

[Willamena]

So it is not meant to be taken at face value, as I supposed.

But then, what IS it supposed to mean, and why can't it be stated in a straight way?

I guess it depends on what it is you expect to be taking at face value.

Let me try another approach: if all it takes to say that one has free will is some kind of choice, then does a bank teller machine (which chooses whether or not to accept the password I give it) have free will? Why or why not?

An ATM doesn't take ownership of "its" action (what it doesn't isn't "up to it"). It has no thought, "I did this."

 

[Thief]

So it is not meant to be taken at face value, as I supposed.

But then, what IS it supposed to mean, and why can't it be stated in a straight way?




Let me try another approach: if all it takes to say that one has free will is some kind of choice, then does a bank teller machine (which chooses whether or not to accept the password I give it) have free will? Why or why not?

And now we embark on the difference between a living being and a machine.