Free will and things I dont see anyone has noticed

[Sculptor1]

I don't see anything here to support your claim.
Compatibilism asserts that we have a will, but concludes that the will is deterministic.
I see no contradiction here.

Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

If a person acts of her own free will, then she could have done otherwise (A-C).
If determinism is true, no one can do otherwise than one actually does (D-E).
Therefore, if determinism is true, no one acts of her own free will (F).

^This is the issue compatibilism attempts to resolve. You are claiming to resolve it simply by saying we have a will which is determined. But, that is not a free will at all, but rather a complex instinct. I could offer another 'resolution' by saying we are fully determined, but past events have determined that we are free. Neither resolves the problem or makes these two incompatible theories work together.

As I see it, I have these 3 options:

1-Accept that for at least some actions, I could have acted differently under the same conditions. I have free will.

2-Accept that I am fully determined and every action I took was always the only possible course based on prior events.

3-Accept that there is some middle ground which defies logic or is too complex to understand.

I've already chewed this over with you before.

You could not answer HOW you could do otherwise.

[h_k_s]

Free will is an illusion only.

Even our tabula rasa is not rasa either.

Though if the illusion is indistinguishable from reality, there is no practical difference and free will may as well be a reality (as it appears to be to every human who has ever lived).

Free will appears to be a reality indeed. But that does not change the greater likelihood that it is merely an illusion.

This is a philosophical debate within epistemology that could go on forever.

[Zelebg]

This is a philosophical debate within epistemology that could go on forever.

I think debate is mostly due to semantics and many different ways both 'free' and 'will' could be understood in the phrase "free will".

This is why I want to equate 'identity' with 'will', as its source and what defines it. In the context of 'identity' word 'free' has much less degrees of freedom which makes things far more transparent.

You can not choose otherwise because your choice is determined by who you are. I am surprised I dont see anyone before drew this parallel between 'will' and 'identity'. To me this makes it clear 'free will' ought to be defined not in terms of choice, but independence and autonomy, and most importantly it must specify is this freedom supposed to be from environmet, from itself, or what.

[Papus79]

I agree with determinism and it's equivalents, what sort of switched me on to something like Sam Harris's line of argument was the notion that we're in time and have a certain set of content, certain states, and certain environmental queues at a given point.

Where I think the moment to moment intuition of actually being in a deterministic universe is the sheer amount of complexity we're dealing with, the ways in which lines of causation seem to bounce in and out of our radar, and so that sort of chaotic quirky analog hum of things makes us feel like that's what's happening. We also have both society and the rules of nature enforcing on us that we are the custodians of our own lives and bodies and that if we slip up it will cost us, that sense of immediate accountability also seems to help embed the notion that we're somehow free to choose what we do.

One person who sort of threw me by moving away from determinism was Colin McGinn. I might actually need to go back to his interview with Michael Shermer to see if there's any more of his new argument I can pick up. My best guess is that he was seeing it as a framing problem rather than the loosely mechanistic movement of things in time but i can't say for sure.

[LuckyR]

Though if the illusion is indistinguishable from reality, there is no practical difference and free will may as well be a reality (as it appears to be to every human who has ever lived).

Free will appears to be a reality indeed. But that does not change the greater likelihood that it is merely an illusion.

This is a philosophical debate within epistemology that could go on forever.

Well if the debate is between true reality and illusion that behaves exactly like reality, that isn't even worth debating. Free will would be indistinguishable from reality, treating it as if it was anything other than real would be like trying to live your day to day life by using quantum mechanics instead of Newtonian mechanics.

[chewybrian]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/



^This is the issue compatibilism attempts to resolve. You are claiming to resolve it simply by saying we have a will which is determined. But, that is not a free will at all, but rather a complex instinct. I could offer another 'resolution' by saying we are fully determined, but past events have determined that we are free. Neither resolves the problem or makes these two incompatible theories work together.

As I see it, I have these 3 options:

1-Accept that for at least some actions, I could have acted differently under the same conditions. I have free will.

2-Accept that I am fully determined and every action I took was always the only possible course based on prior events.

3-Accept that there is some middle ground which defies logic or is too complex to understand.

I've already chewed this over with you before.

You could not answer HOW you could do otherwise.

I answered, but you just don't like the answer. I can do it because I am doing it. My answer need not be constrained by the artificial limits you set. If I thought it should be, I could just agree with you.

I look out the window. I see the sky is blue, and the grass is green. You ask me to prove HOW they are blue and green, and perhaps I can not. But the burden of proof is on the other side. I also open the fridge and perceive that I can have milk or orange juice with my breakfast, and the burden is on the other side once again. I am not compelled to ignore my own senses because I don't understand the underlying processes.

The best HOW my mind can conjure is that my consciousness need not be a material thing, or could be material, of a type not subject to the rules which govern those material things with which we are familiar. A native of a remote tropical island may not understand that water can freeze into ice, or that radio waves can pass through a solid object, yet... We have this theory that seems to hold, but that does not mean that we understand or have encountered everything.

But, this is another argument. You proposed to marry determinism and free will. But you did not. Saying we have a fully determined will is also saying that we lack free will. HOW do you feel you have shown that these theories are compatible?

[Zelebg]

Saying we have a fully determined will is also saying that we lack free will. HOW do you feel you have shown that these theories are compatible?

This is how, it's pretty simple:
You can not choose otherwise because your choice is determined by who you are.

1. identity defines choice, relative to circumstances
2. identity can be exact description, say encoded in symbols or other kinds of patterns
3. such identity, as digital, deterministic description, is not obstacle for free will
4. therefore, having no ability to choose otherwise, does not confirm we have no free will

[chewybrian]

Saying we have a fully determined will is also saying that we lack free will. HOW do you feel you have shown that these theories are compatible?

This is how, it's pretty simple:
You can not choose otherwise because your choice is determined by who you are.

1. identity defines choice, relative to circumstances
2. identity can be exact description, say encoded in symbols or other kinds of patterns
3. such identity, as digital, deterministic description, is not obstacle for free will
4. therefore, having no ability to choose otherwise, does not confirm we have no free will

I understand how you arrive at this conclusion by the path you choose, but I disagree strongly with the path. It declares an end to free will as I understand and define it, and in the way most non-philosophers think of free will. It is a device to redefine free will as something convenient to science or to the theory of determinism, rather than what it is in practice, in the real world.

Life loses all meaning under those terms. My "choice" is then only an instinct or reaction, such as a plant turning toward the sunlight. Being unrestricted from following the sunlight chasing desire might be considered 'freedom' for the plant, but not for the man. People have this pesky freedom to choose otherwise than following the light, in a sense. People can choose solitude, unhappiness and even death. Do plants ignore the light with willful intent? Do they choose death? Freedom is not simply being out of chains. It is the ability to decide, which always necessarily includes the ability to decide otherwise, or it ceases to become a decision at all. This freedom is self-evident and unavoidable. Not only can we choose, but we must.

It is not necessary that I escape the 'trap' of determinism to declare that I have a REAL free will. The eagle can fly, but he presumably does not know the rules of physics that allow him to fly. I can choose, and I don't need to know how or why to be satisfied that I am doing it, any more than the eagle needs a masters in physics to take off. Would you concede that we don't know what consciousness really is? As such, can we set up rules which it must necessarily follow, even as we see it break these rules at every turn?

[Zelebg]

If there is a true random element I cannot say, but there is no case for the will being free; free from what? Free from our own experience?? I think not.

"Free from self", it seems to be what most people want from 'free will' without realizing what it really means. But I just realized this myself a week ago and have never heard of anything like that before. You are the only person I know who shares this opinion, are we minority? Isn't there some famous philosopher who said that already long time ago?

[Zelebg]

It is a device to redefine free will as something convenient to science or to the theory of determinism, rather than what it is in practice, in the real world.

How do you define what it is in practice/real world?

It is the ability to decide, which always necessarily includes the ability to decide otherwise, or it ceases to become a decision at all.

The choice can still be made. In the moment it is already too late, you have already made the choice by becoming who you are by that point in time. You make real "choice" after you make choice by reflecting upon it, by understanding it, evaluating it... and by doing so changing your identity/personality, improving, learning... for the next time.

Not only can we choose, but we must.

How is that different from this sentence: Not only roof can decide which way raindrops go, but it must.

It is not necessary that I escape the 'trap' of determinism to declare that I have a REAL free will.

What do you mean?

Would you concede that we don't know what consciousness really is? As such, can we set up rules which it must necessarily follow, even as we see it break these rules at every turn?

I agree we don't know what consciousness really is. But it doesn't matter since 'will' must be a function of 'identity' whatever consciousness may be.

It's "self-implied" truth, or whatever that kind of inference may be called. When we say "you chose", it is word "you" where word "chose" becomes from and without which it can not become. And what is it inside "you" that defines the way you think, the way you choose, if not your identity/personality? Ghost in the machine? It does not make a difference.

[Sculptor1]

I've already chewed this over with you before.

You could not answer HOW you could do otherwise.

I answered, but you just don't like the answer. I can do it because I am doing it. My answer need not be constrained by the artificial limits you set. If I thought it should be, I could just agree with you.

I asked HOW. FFS
{quote]

I look out the window. I see the sky is blue, and the grass is green. You ask me to prove HOW they are blue and green, and perhaps I can not. But the burden of proof is on the other side. I also open the fridge and perceive that I can have milk or orange juice with my breakfast, and the burden is on the other side once again. I am not compelled to ignore my own senses because I don't understand the underlying processes.
[/quote]
You are clueless

The best HOW my mind can conjure is that my consciousness need not be a material thing, or could be material, of a type not subject to the rules which govern those material things with which we are familiar. A native of a remote tropical island may not understand that water can freeze into ice, or that radio waves can pass through a solid object, yet... We have this theory that seems to hold, but that does not mean that we understand or have encountered everything.

But, this is another argument. You proposed to marry determinism and free will. But you did not. Saying we have a fully determined will is also saying that we lack free will. HOW do you feel you have shown that these theories are compatible?

Like I said, I had this all out with you before.
You were clueless now, and you are still clueless.

[chewybrian]

I answered, but you just don't like the answer. I can do it because I am doing it. My answer need not be constrained by the artificial limits you set. If I thought it should be, I could just agree with you.

I asked HOW. FFS

I look out the window. I see the sky is blue, and the grass is green. You ask me to prove HOW they are blue and green, and perhaps I can not. But the burden of proof is on the other side. I also open the fridge and perceive that I can have milk or orange juice with my breakfast, and the burden is on the other side once again. I am not compelled to ignore my own senses because I don't understand the underlying processes.

You are clueless

The best HOW my mind can conjure is that my consciousness need not be a material thing, or could be material, of a type not subject to the rules which govern those material things with which we are familiar. A native of a remote tropical island may not understand that water can freeze into ice, or that radio waves can pass through a solid object, yet... We have this theory that seems to hold, but that does not mean that we understand or have encountered everything.

But, this is another argument. You proposed to marry determinism and free will. But you did not. Saying we have a fully determined will is also saying that we lack free will. HOW do you feel you have shown that these theories are compatible?

Like I said, I had this all out with you before.
You were clueless now, and you are still clueless.

It is not a question of not understanding your point. I simply disagree. You demand that I prove it to your satisfaction under your terms, but I don't accept the terms. Many people accept many things which I doubt or disbelieve, like God. But, I seldom find cause to call them clueless for having a different set of beliefs.

You have restricted yourself to a narrow understanding of a complex and mysterious universe when it comes to this issue, and I prefer to leave the possibility of free will on the table for as long as I am able. If there is a 1% chance, I will take the 99 to 1 odds. Why would I not? I'm quite certain that you, too, continue to choose all day long "as if" you were actually able to do so, "as if" you could have taken the unchosen option. I'm sure you have the feeling in your soul that you are free all the time. You say you are convinced that it is all an illusion without a reason, because you have a theory which seems to work with most things. You apply it to a different, unknown thing (your consciousness), and insist that the results must be the same, even as every perception tells you otherwise, that this new thing is somehow unique. I can't tell you exactly what it is, either, so I can not make demands on what it can or can not do, beyond seeing what I see. Why do you think you can?

[Sculptor1]

I asked HOW. FFS

You are clueless


Like I said, I had this all out with you before.
You were clueless now, and you are still clueless.

It is not a question of not understanding your point. I simply disagree.

Avoiding the question and setting spurious goalposts does not mean you get an argument.
All science rests on cause and effect and all explanations require answers as to HOW.
If you can't answer that question you have nothing, except weak wishfullness, just like any other idiotic theist.

[Papus79]

I was watching on Youtube 'Laurin Bellg - Near-Death Experiences in the ICU', it's an IANDS lecture she did a few years ago and she's one of the medical professionals talking about this sort of thing - its reminiscent of the sort of conversations the University of Virginia group would have but rather than having a meta-conversation she's talking about her experiences as an intern running into this stuff, then as a physician.

She raises some very valid points - most noteworthy that with whatever's happening with this it's horrible bedside manners for doctors to rush people off to psych wards and dose them up with medication or immediately assume brain damage as the meaning of these experiences.

I've commented in another thread (hashing something out with someone who I'm in a bit of a running conversation with on the same topic - ie. whether the current state of science is the arbiter of what dutifually needs to be taken as real or unreal) and while we haven't brought up 'anicdote' as such, these things get dismissed as 'anecdote' but the question does come up - when does enough anecdote turn into 'ok, it's real but we don't understand it yet' on a public level. In my conversation I was outlining an ideological war that science is stuck in and it seems like there's a notion, either consciously understood or subconsciously, that reductive materialism is a strategy that keeps the cultural power in the court of the scientific institutions and for the most part they're less concerned with keeping that power for any reason of megalomania but rather because they get the sense that every generation seems to bring a new attack against reason (before it was religion, now it seems to be the postmodernist and intersectional left), and there's a non-zero risk that they could lose, that the scientific edifice and human progress could be lost to populist or reactionary mania (wouldn't be the first time - look at how many times the Library of Alexandria got burned), thus any scientific findings that would seem to suggest that there's anything 'spiritual' about matter risk religion reuptaking power, science getting culturally dominated, and the facts themselves could be correct but the real problem would be that religion tends to be very much about social hierarchy, the power of personalities, and overtime - seemingly rather quickly, that cedes power to a bunch of people with dark triad traits and we get into situations of religious war and the like as those sorts of people get to soak up freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. with their coercive abilities.

We might actually need to think about having more conversation about the conversation, ie. how to lets say 'give this victory to science' in such a way that it doesn't empower the dissolution of reason or find ways to do more rigorous research on these sorts of veridical experiences to say 'Yes - we'll admit they're real BUT....' and then go on down the line of separating things that are real from things that are woo.

[Papus79]

^Crap, need the above deleted. Wrong thread.