Defining Free Will

[LuisDantas]

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


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."

Precisely.

So is free will in fact the feeling of being capable of choice and of being responsible for it?

That would mean that it is indeed unrelated to the traditional definitions, including yours and Webster's.

In fact, it would mean that it is a psychological derangement, A mental defect. One that has absolutely nothing to do with the capability of choice, but everything to do with deluding oneself about the meaning of that choice.

 

[Willamena]

Precisely.

So is free will in fact the feeling of being capable of choice and of being responsible for it?

That would mean that it is indeed unrelated to the traditional definitions, including yours and Webster's.

In fact, it would mean that it is a psychological derangement, A mental defect. One that has absolutely nothing to do with the capability of choice, but everything to do with deluding oneself about the meaning of that choice.

I would (and have) say that free will is taking ownership of the thought that there is an "I" that "does things."

While my definition (which you asked for, so I gave) may be a step removed from "traditional" definitions, the one given above isn't. It's rather standard.

 

[Willamena]

So is free will in fact the feeling of being capable of choice and of being responsible for it?

I wouldn't presume to translate the definition quoted above as this --it takes too much for granted. I would, however, say that this is one definition of free will that's been passed around.

 

[Skwim]

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

But it's a pretty lame/sloppy definition. Take a look at it again.

"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.


​

Does this really speak to the issue of free will vs. determinism? Hardly.

Edited to add.

I see your more recent post explains your thoughts on free will: "free will is taking ownership of the thought that there is an "I" that "does things." If that's what "free will" means to you, fine. Carry on and never mind my intrusion.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would (and have) say that free will is taking ownership of the thought that there is an "I" that "does things."

While my definition (which you asked for, so I gave) may be a step removed from "traditional" definitions, the one given above isn't. It's rather standard.

Yours is at least applicable to situations and beings that actually exist. The choice of name is odd and sorely misleading, but at least the feeling it describes does in fact happen (even if it would probably be better that it did not).

The traditional definitions are something for online games and science fiction stories. Utterly irrealistic, and in fact demonstrably impossible in the real world.

 

[Thief]

Yours is at least applicable to situations and beings that actually exist. The choice of name is odd and sorely misleading, but at least the feeling it describes does in fact happen (even if it would probably be better that it did not).

The traditional definitions are something for online games and science fiction stories. Utterly irrealistic, and in fact demonstrably impossible in the real world.

If this were true you would be in a position to rewrite what this world believes to be true.

You are the earth's new Savior......
And we are free of all blame.

Nothing on this planet is Man's fault.

We are destined to soil the nest until we choke in our debris.
And there is no after life...no hope...
Only total failure and the grave await us.

So much for humanity.

 

[Willamena]

But it's a pretty lame/sloppy definition. Take a look at it again.

"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.


​

Does this really speak to the issue of free will vs. determinism? Hardly.

No, it just defines free will, for the purposes of the article.

Edited to add.

I see your more recent post explains your thoughts on free will: "free will is taking ownership of the thought that there is an "I" that "does things." If that's what "free will" means to you, fine. Carry on and never mind my intrusion.

 

[Willamena]

Yours is at least applicable to situations and beings that actually exist.

That is my intent.

The choice of name is odd and sorely misleading, but at least the feeling it describes does in fact happen (even if it would probably be better that it did not).

"Feeling"? Is that what I described?

You're taking something for granted again --I just haven't figured out what. (Perhaps when I do, we can have an actual conversation. )

The traditional definitions are something for online games and science fiction stories. Utterly irrealistic, and in fact demonstrably impossible in the real world.

 

[Storm]

There are a lot of debates regarding whether people have free will or not. I've never seen a definition of free will that I find to be satisfactory, though. I feel that if it's not properly defined, the question of whether people have something is not very meaningful.

For those here that believe in free will, can you please provide your definition of free will? For clarity, depending on your position it may help to define what a will is, and then to explain how a free will is different than a will that is not free.

Thanks.

I suck at this, but I'll give it a shot.

Free will is the capacity for moral choice. It's the ability to choose one's path, rather than simply follow instinct.

 

[Penumbra]

Penumbra,

The first article gives a brief explanation of Libet's work:

Benjamin Libet - neurophysiologist studied the nature of free will - SFGate

This article refers to mistaken intentions or confabulated intentions in brain damaged patients, although this also occurs under different circumstances in normal brains as well, in which case it is called choice blindness:

Split Brain Studies: One Mind per Hemisphere

Choice blindness:

Using choice blindness to study decision making and introspection

There are many other relevant examples on related material in Daniel Wegner's Illusion of Conscious Will. It is very difficult to know what our own intentions are, much less assign causality to them. I think that mechanisms in the brain which are not voluntary are responsible for both intention and act rather than an intention causing an act.

I do not claim to understand consciousness. It is a new field, and we know very little. But I don't see how it could be a causal agency.

Our own subjective perceptions of intention are so flawed and unreliable that I have a hard time believing that the perception of intention is actually the cause of any action.

Yes, I have. I am just not convinced that our intentions are actually causal agents when humans so easily confabulate them and in some circumstances can be fooled into thinking they performed an action which was caused by an external agent or vice versa.

It may be that consciousness plays a role in volition. I don't know. One must be careful with such a claim because it often borders on dualism. But I am not convinced that our sense of will is causal. It is likely just a prediction of what the organism is going to do and may come from an underlying mechanism that is actually the "cause," if you will, of both the perceived intention and action. That is why the perception of free will is increased when an action follows through with the intention, but when this is not the case, the sense of free will decreases. Our sense of intention is not objective at all.

Thanks for the links.

They're interesting, but it seems to me they are largely about impulsive things- and I do not disagree that we have a lot of subconscious wiring for making quick choices impulsively. From those examples, being told to move a finger is a simple action, identifying an attractive female face has a lot to do with evolutionary programming, and even the more complex things, like taking time to pick something from a power point slide, are still fairly impulsive because they're picking something on the spot.

And from the first link:

To many philosophers this seemed to indicate that "free will" might not exist in humans at all, but Dr. Libet disagreed. When his experiments showed that if his subjects were told not to move a finger, or to stop moving it, their conscious will would maintain complete control - "could veto it and block performance of the act," as he described it.

...


I think during complex actions, our consciousness is involved, because there is no series of quick evolutionary behaviors that can lead us to make a choice, like a simple movement, recognition of an attractive face, or even a fairly quick pick between products based on a series of pros and cons. Making choices such as deciding to improve oneself over years, or building a complex system, currently make use of consciousness.

And even in simple actions, among the most basic things of an organism's system is that it releases certain brain chemicals to achieve certain ends, and these chemicals largely affect consciousness. In simple animals, like worms, chemicals are released in response to a situation regarding food, by rewarding behaviors conducive to survival with pleasure (even if its really basic pleasure for a simple animal). In more complex animals, there is a derivative of required goods. They need food and similar resources, but they also need secondary resources like powerful social standing to achieve those first order resources. So their brains have a more complex system to release chemicals for more reasons. The basics are the same though- the chemicals tells us when we're doing things conducive to our survival (unless they are abused, like with drugs or something).

It seems to me that based on these fundamental observations, the awareness is useful for nature because that's how it ended up directing behavior. We have a series of subconscious systems that allow us to make choices as well, but throughout, consciousness plays a role because it directs our desires based on these chemicals influencing us.

 

[Penumbra]

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.

In reference specifically to the free will debate, I've seen hard indeterminism used as a form of compatibilism. In other words, it's argued that free will is not incompatible with determinism- but that since chance exists (determinism is not completely true), free will is not true.

I haven't seen how either chance or causality or any combination of the two can act as reasonable ingredients to free will.

On the macro scale, things are largely causal. Things lead to other things. (If they didn't, then conservation of energy would be untrue, and this would be a remarkable find). On the quantum scale, things are dominated by probabilities, but probabilities are rigorously mathematically defined in relation to causal events for the most part. There is chance involved, but it's chance bound by probability.

So for the most part, something happens, and it has various probabilities of causing certain things- but on the macro scale, the probabilities focus down onto causing the highest probability action. So while it may be reasonably probable for fundamental particles to spring in and out of existence, or go through things they shouldn't be going through, it's drastically improbable for a macro-sized object to do the same, because there would have to be an inconceivable amount of improbable actions occurring towards the same end.

But it's a pretty lame/sloppy definition. Take a look at it again.

"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.
​

I agree that this definition is not adequate.

-Free will is what it takes to act freely. (circular)
-What she does is up to her. (vague)
-She determines among alternatives (a computer can do that)
-Ultimate source or origin of her action (in what way- if she is the origin of her action, why is it that she caused that thing rather than another thing? Was it chance, and if so, how does chance lead to free will? And this sounds like it violates the conservation of energy anyway.)

Neither was this one, for the same reason.

"The ability to choose between alternative possibilities in such a way that the choice and action are to some extent creatively determined by the conscious subject at the time."

-What is "creatively determined"?
-How does choice relate to free will? Obviously it's not sufficient, as software can make choices but we do not call it free.

 

[Penumbra]

I suck at this, but I'll give it a shot.

Free will is the capacity for moral choice. It's the ability to choose one's path, rather than simply follow instinct.

Thanks for the reply.

Firstly though, a lot of morality is built into social animals as instinct.

Secondly, this still leaves the dilemma of either consisting of chance or causality, or some combination of both (and neither of which would appear to be free at all).

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2488642-post59.html

 

[Thief]

In reference specifically to the free will debate, I've seen hard indeterminism used as a form of compatibilism. In other words, it's argued that free will is not incompatible with determinism- but that since chance exists (determinism is not completely true), free will is not true.

I haven't seen how either chance or causality or any combination of the two can act as reasonable ingredients to free will.

On the macro scale, things are largely causal. Things lead to other things. (If they didn't, then conservation of energy would be untrue, and this would be a remarkable find). On the quantum scale, things are dominated by probabilities, but probabilities are rigorously mathematically defined in relation to causal events for the most part. There is chance involved, but it's chance bound by probability.

So for the most part, something happens, and it has various probabilities of causing certain things- but on the macro scale, the probabilities focus down onto causing the highest probability action. So while it may be reasonably probable for fundamental particles to spring in and out of existence, or go through things they shouldn't be going through, it's drastically improbable for a macro-sized object to do the same, because there would have to be an inconceivable amount of improbable actions occurring towards the same end.


I agree that this definition is not adequate.

-Free will is what it takes to act freely. (circular)
-What she does is up to her. (vague)
-She determines among alternatives (a computer can do that)
-Ultimate source or origin of her action (in what way- if she is the origin of her action, why is it that she caused that thing rather than another thing? Was it chance, and if so, how does chance lead to free will? And this sounds like it violates the conservation of energy anyway.)

Neither was this one, for the same reason.
-What is "creatively determined"?
-How does choice relate to free will? Obviously it's not sufficient, as software can make choices but we do not call it free.

But we do call each other 'free'.
And we call people lacking freedom....'oppressed'.

You do realize the argument against freewill flies in the face of everything
we humans claim to be...'human'....?

Everything thing from our immediate preferences....to social mores'....
to our relationship with God.

oh... that's right...you worship computers.

 

[Penumbra]

If this were true you would be in a position to rewrite what this world believes to be true.

You are the earth's new Savior......
And we are free of all blame.

Nothing on this planet is Man's fault.

We are destined to soil the nest until we choke in our debris.
And there is no after life...no hope...
Only total failure and the grave await us.

So much for humanity.

But we do call each other 'free'.
And we call people lacking freedom....'oppressed'.

You do realize the argument against freewill flies in the face of everything
we humans claim to be...'human'....?

Everything thing from our immediate preferences....to social mores'....
to our relationship with God.

oh... that's right...you worship computers.

I'm interested in logical arguments rather than appeals to emotion in this thread.

 

[Thief]

I'm interested in logical arguments rather than appeals to emotion in this thread.

So you would 'prefer' to make discussion like Spock, of Star Trek fame?

A discussion of freewill while attempting to negate half of what we humans are.

That would be illogical.

 

[Penumbra]

So you would 'prefer' to make discussion like Spock, of Star Trek fame?

A discussion of freewill while attempting to negate half of what we humans are.

That would be illogical.

The emotional impact on the existence or nonexistence of free will is a separate discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

In here I'm only interested in the definitions of free will that people put forth, and whether they are sound.

 

[idav]

Most things are definately out of control. What little we are able to influence is our ability to exercise our choice which is free will. Maybe our choice and influence isn't necessarily a product of our consciousness but we sure can influence things more than say some fish that just swims in streams all day. A human has more free will in comparison to a fish.

 

[Storm]

Thanks for the reply.

Firstly though, a lot of morality is built into social animals as instinct.

Ah, good point. Allow me to elaborate:
1) Free will is a feature of sapience. Sapience is a level of complexity. As life forms become more complex, they approach sapience/ free will. It's not a hard line, but a gradient.
2) You've unintentionally highlighted my distinction for me. Humans, being sapient, can go against instinct, for good or ill. We can choose. This is the essence of free will.

Secondly, this still leaves the dilemma of either consisting of chance or causality, or some combination of both (and neither of which would appear to be free at all).

I think I understand, but it's early and I'm not totally sure. Elaborate, please?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2488642-post59.html

Will check it out, thanks for helping me catch up!

 

[Penumbra]

Ah, good point. Allow me to elaborate:
1) Free will is a feature of sapience. Sapience is a level of complexity. As life forms become more complex, they approach sapience/ free will. It's not a hard line, but a gradient.
2) You've unintentionally highlighted my distinction for me. Humans, being sapient, can go against instinct, for good or ill. We can choose. This is the essence of free will.

Yes, but don't we choose in relation to our instincts? Although it would be physically possible, I don't think I could choose right now to go out into the parking lot and break all the windows in every car. No amount of mental gymnastics could lead me to do it, because it's not something I would do.

My view of human choice, and I see no other alternative, is that we are an iterative system. Each state chooses the next. The choice is real, but all of the inputs and the decision-making systems are part of our current state- and it leads to the next state. From birth to death it's all dominated by causality (perhaps also including a bit of chance, but maybe not). For each given state, the next state is chosen by inputs from the external world, as well as from logical outcomes of what the current state is.

I think I understand, but it's early and I'm not totally sure. Elaborate, please?

What I mean is, logically speaking (and physically speaking too), there are two identifiable potential causes.

-The first is causality, wherein one thing leads to another (or more realistically, the sum of a whole bunch of things leads to a whole bunch of other things). The common example is that of a pool table, where one strikes a ball and it causes a huge chain reaction towards other balls, and while it may seem random, it's all bound by the laws of physics and causality. If the balls were set up the exact same way again, and a ball hit in the exact same way, the exact same outcome would occur again.

-The second is chance, where things can happen without being caused directly. While it was once thought that the universe is purely deterministic, insights into quantum mechanics has shown that, at least on the small scale, things are determined mainly by probability. But logically speaking, chance is not free. Chance is further from freedom than causality, actually.

I don't perceive any other options for events occurring. Our choices must be based on either one or both of these two things, and neither seems to be what people think of when they think of free will.

 

[Thief]

The emotional impact on the existence or nonexistence of free will is a separate discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

In here I'm only interested in the definitions of free will that people put forth, and whether they are sound.

'Sound' as in 'rational'?...and a human without feelings is normal?...rational?