How do you exactly define 'free will'?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am not conflating choice and cause. What I am saying is that free will requires choice and causation.

1) Defining causation was problematic for centuries, but in modern physics we have proof that it can't exist according to its classical conception (Bell's inequality). So you don't define free will but you do mischaracterize causality.

I have no idea on what you mean by 'negates'.

Renders nonsensical, useless, pointless, and illogical.

How so?

Choice is central to all definitions of free will and by using it as you do you admit free will into your argument of its non-existence.

I don't remember saying "causing..according to...free will". So I don't even know how to reply to this.

causing them according to his will then free will

I am beggining to think you have made a lot of conclusions based on just a few sentences I have written so far.

It takes a single statement to negate an argument

 

[Estro Felino]

Sure, in that I can't use something that does not exist, can not exist and can't even be meaningfully defined in the first place.
?

come on...you decided to reply to this thread. You used your own free will. Nobody forced you.
If there were no free will, lots of people would never go to jail. Because lots of criminals consider themselves innocent. and still they are sentenced to prison because they used their own free will

 

[Koldo]

1) Defining causation was problematic for centuries, but in modern physics we have proof that it can't exist according to its classical conception (Bell's inequality). So you don't define free will but you do mischaracterize causality.

Do I ? You seem to be making more and more assumptions as times goes by.

Renders nonsensical, useless, pointless, and illogical.

In what way does it negate determinism?

Choice is central to all definitions of free will and by using it as you do you admit free will into your argument of its non-existence.

I wonder how you came to that conclusion.

And thanks for quoting me and proving that you misquoted, and probably misunderstood what I have said.

It takes a single statement to negate an argument

Apparently it only takes a single statement to derive multiple unfounded assumptions.

 

[LuisDantas]

come on...you decided to reply to this thread. You used your own free will. Nobody forced you.

That is actually questionable. It has been amply demonstrated that freedom of choice is largely, and quite possibly completely, an illusion.

If there were no free will, lots of people would never go to jail. Because lots of criminals consider themselves innocent. and still they are sentenced to prison because they used their own free will

The perception that people sometimes deserve to be jailed because they need punishment for abusing their free will may well exist, but as evidence for free will's existence it is rather poor.

In any case, is your proposal that having some apparent choice is evidence for the existence of free will? Because if it is, then I must say it is probably a misnomer. Very few, and probably none of my choices ever deserved to be called "free".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Do I ? You seem to be making more and more assumptions as times goes by.

Then no doubt you can begin to describe my error by at least starting to explain Bell's inequality as it is relevant here.

In what way does it negate determinism?

By definition.

I wonder how you came to that conclusion.

Choice is defined by an ability to consciously select among different options. Determinism doesn't allow this.

The other garbage you wrote need not be addressed until you can proffer a definition of determinism that is not only useful (rather than the nonsense you've spouted thus far) but consistent with usage in the sciences. Only then will we be able to address how completely your notions are illogical.

 

[Estro Felino]

Very few, and probably none of my choices ever deserved to be called "free".

That's the point. Exactly. Because you underwent other people's choices and and I am 100 % sure that those choices of yours were not free because someone else prevented you from using your free will. Or other people must have taken a decision you had to undergo.

but these people used their own free will.

it's so evident: all the people use their own free will and their choices influence other people's lives. But there is responsibility, even if sometimes it is partial, (and so shared) or total

 

[Koldo]

Then no doubt you can begin to describe my error by at least starting to explain Bell's inequality as it is relevant here.

Until you properly comprehend and adress what I have said, I refuse to entertain you in subjects of your interest.

By definition.

Choice is defined by an ability to consciously select among different options. Determinism doesn't allow this.

There must be, given any given particular scenario, only one option that will ( and would ) be pinned down by the 'will'. Otherwise, the nature of the choice is random and/or based on factors that go beyond the scope of the will. The 'will' must be necessary and sufficient in itself to make choices ( non-probabilistic ), and this can only be granted by determinism. Which is why I have said free will is contradictory ( since actual choices can't exist on determinism ).

The other garbage you wrote need not be addressed until you can proffer a definition of determinism that is not only useful (rather than the nonsense you've spouted thus far) but consistent with usage in the sciences. Only then will we be able to address how completely your notions are illogical.

Perhaps you should be the one to propose a definition for 'determinism', since it is you who has a problem with how I have been using that word.

 

[JerryL]

For those free-will advocates: What happens to free will when you are drunk?

If it's *you* making the decisions, why are your decisions different then?

If alcohol can make your chose one thing rather than another: can't everything (like the chemicals in your not-drunk brain) do the same?

 

[Skwim]

By rejecting of the notion that the world is purely mechanical with no randomness.

Quite right. If randomness played a part then the consequence may well be different. Not necessarily so, but possibly. Of course this still doesn't rescue freewill. What we do, is dictated by the events, random or not, that lead up to the moment of doing.

It's not that my decisions aren't products of preconditions, but that my decisions were not the only inevitable consequence of those preconditions.

Of course not. Other events could arise out of the chain of cause/events that lead up to your "decision," as well. Maybe they also made you cough or squint, but this would entail supplementary input.

I had the real ability to chose otherwise in those preconditions.

But the only way you could have done differently is if something in the series of cause/effect events was different. And the only agency capable of doing that is an utterly random event intruding into the series of events. And even then you wouldn't be choosing anything. You would be acting as the preconditions (randomness intrusion or not) dictated. Choosing, choice, and chosen play absolutely no part in life. We and everything else only do what preconditions dictate. To do differently there MUST be something different in the chain of cause/effect events leading up to the moment of action, be it a thought or punching someone in the stomach. This is why freewill, the ability have done differently, is a concept dead in the water. We do things because . . . . and the "cause" in "because" is very telling. It signifies the operant mechanism of all we do.

 

[viole]

And do you think that we're entitled for such privilege (whatever)?

Free will is like playing roulette.

Roulette is not truly random. If we knew the perfect mechanical microstate of all the parts involved, we would realize that there is nothing random about it. The outcome would be determined, given enough knowledge.

But for all practical purposes, it is random. Because we do not possess that knowledge.

The same with free will. If we knew the perfect state of someone's brain and the external stimulations it is subjected to, we could determine her next choices.

But we don't know that. So, for all practical purposes it is free. Even if it is not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

Free will is like playing roulette.

Roulette is not truly random. If we knew the perfect mechanical microstate of all the parts involved, we would realize that there is nothing random about it. The outcome would be determined, given enough knowledge.

But for all practical purposes, it is random. Because we do not possess that knowledge.

The same with free will. If we knew the perfect state of someone's brain and the external stimulations it is subjected to, we could deduce her next choices.

But we don't know that. So, for all practical purposes it is free. Even if it is not.

Ciao

- viole

And this is where determinism and freewill must be carefully defined in any productive freewill Vs. determinism discussion. Determinism is the mechanism of causation that gives rise to all events (truly random events excepted). Freewill is the ability to have done differently. And Randomness indicates events utterly without cause.

Outside of these definitions any talk about freewill and determinism is simply sparing over degrees of freedom.

 

[Willamena]

And this is the only sense in which discussing it is meaningful. All other forms are variations of notions that included the possibility of some agency working against one's will. The will being a property of the mind to act intentionally.

The only sense that is meaningful for what--meaningful to what end?

 

[viole]

And this is where determinism and freewill must be carefully defined in any productive freewill Vs. determinism discussion. Determinism is the mechanism of causation that gives rise to all events (truly random events excepted). Freewill is the ability to have done differently. And Randomness indicates events utterly without cause.

Outside of these definitions any talk about freewill and determinism is simply sparing over degrees of freedom.

Yes, but truly free will, if existed, would also be utterly without a cause.

Because, if there were a cause, how could we call it free? And if it indeed had a cause, whatever that is, can I invoke it to reduce my accountability?

Here we go. A defeater of the first premise of Kalam. Something that begins to exist, my will, without a cause.

Cio

- viole

 

[Willamena]

Wrong. Free will requires determinism, which is why it is a contradictory notion.
If the agent is not under complete control of its own choices, effectively causing them according to his will then free will doesn't exist.

What is the "you" that controls choices?

 

[Willamena]

Yes, but truly free will, if existed, would also be utterly without a cause.

Because, if there were a cause, how could we call it free? And if it indeed had a cause, whatever that is, can I invoke it to reduce my accountability?

Indeed, human agency acts utterly without a cause in the world, else we should cease to be "we." In grammatically equating an illusive "me" with the agency of "my" actions, with no support or grounding at all under my feet "I" step into the world and assume life. Ghost in the machine, owner of all that it does. A passing thought.

And do you think that we're entitled for such privilege (whatever)?

H-e-double-hocky sticks, yeah!

 

[Skwim]

Yes, but truly free will, if existed, would also be utterly without a cause.

Because, if there were a cause, how could we call it free? And if it indeed had a cause, whatever that is, can I invoke it to reduce my accountability?

Pretty much so, although I can easily see people admitting to some causal factors playing a part, but not to the extent that it would deprive them of purposeful choice.

 

[Adstar]

Independent of what?

Independence from anything.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's the point. Exactly. Because you underwent other people's choices and and I am 100 % sure that those choices of yours were not free because someone else prevented you from using your free will. Or other people must have taken a decision you had to undergo.

but these people used their own free will.

Did they? I don't think we have any evidence that free will even exists.

it's so evident: all the people use their own free will and their choices influence other people's lives. But there is responsibility, even if sometimes it is partial, (and so shared) or total

Sorry, I just don't know what you are talking about.

 

[LuisDantas]

Pretty much so, although I can easily see people admitting to some causal factors playing a part, but not to the extent that it would deprive them of purposeful choice.

Sometimes I wonder if some people believe in Free Will because that feels empowering. It would make it appear like their limitations are in some sense either self-imposed or deliberately caused by someone else.

 

[Skwim]

Independence from anything.

Well, it has to depend on something or else it wouldn't exist, unless you think it's makes an utterly random appearance out of nothing.