Free: occurring without coercion within circumstantial and situational constraints imposed by normal conditions.

One of my biggest issues with these debates is that people always define free as uncoerced. In my opinion, this is just framing the debate with loaded language. I do not believe in libertarianism.

I think the best you can do philosophically is to argue for "will." Just drop the qualifier, which is a theologically generated concept, which was invented to salvage the notion of God being just in the light of suffering. E.g. suffering is the result of human volition therefore God is still good.

So my argument for "will," would basically be Dennett's position. We have a range of options that appear to be able to be subjected to conscious deliberation on our part, and the range is determined by cause and effect, and it seems to be the case, that we can choose between these options. So epistemologically, it is not possible to know if we are actually deliberating or if it just appears that we are, for all intents and purposes, it seems to us as if we are making choices. Therefore, it might be safe to say that we have a "will."

You and I just have very different views of human beings in general. You seem to view them as individually unique in their own right. I am suggesting while that yes there is definitely uniqueness to each person, if given the right education, diet, and living in a society which is safe and contains opportunity for them, they will be dramatically different, and for the better. I am suggesting that given certain environmental parameters, you can reliably predict outcomes for that child. Take the quote, "Give me a child until the age of 7, and I will tell you what kind of adult they will become." (I probably butchered that, lol)

On the short run, outcomes look arbitrary and heavily influenced by the environment. On the long run, however, there is probably a real pattern to it. The common denominator is probably yourself.

I just do not agree with this. The single biggest predictor of someone's life outcomes is the economic situation of their parents. This suggests a feedback system, in which the inputs determine, maybe not absolutely, the outcomes. I do not think the outcome ever look arbitrary, I think they almost always point to a description of the starting trajectory.

You will not be able to change anything to that phenomenon. Even if you change the hierarchy, the same crowd is going to sink to the bottom, and the same crowd is going to rise to the top. The wealthy datsha bureaucracy of the Soviet Union were obviously the former factory owners, while the factory workers themselves became even worse off than before.

This is just false, and this was the logic used by Aristotle and Plato to argue for slavery, and the same logic used by proponents of the apartheid south in the US. Basically, suggesting that some humans are naturally going to rise to the top or sink to the bottom, is to suggest they have these ineffable qualities. This is just patently false.

I think the whole idea of atomizing individuals into market logic competition is fundamentally dehumanizing, although I am please to see you suggesting a social-libertarian philosophy. I am not necessarily agreeing completely, but I like to see people thinking about ways to have more humane economic organization.

Well thanks for sharing some of your personal experience. One of the things my poll was trying to get at, was not simply describing that some countries and individuals have different outcomes, and to think about which outcomes are better or worse. The point is how are those different outcomes generated? In my opinion, much of these outcomes are the products of the structure of the society, and other factors which have nothing to do with someone's merit or lack thereof. Of course people prefer to live in comfort rather than a pile of garbage, but the whole subject I am trying to get at, is what produces these outcomes? In my opinion, inequality is baked into the system, and this is not the fault of individuals not being good enough to succeed or "participate in global economies like New York or London." Hence, I believe changing the way the economy is structured from the ground up can generate more equality from the starting point, which will translate to more equality at the finishing line, and I believe considering how individuals are constrained or propelled by their circumstances is a good way to see that the current system generates illegitimate hierarchies.

Sure I agree, penalizing actions which come at great cost to people or the environment is a great start. The funny thing about our current system is when you consider what are called "externalities," if these were actually factored into a companies cost to do business, many of the companies that are currently profitable, (often through accounting voodoo) would no longer be profitable.

I would like something a bit more radical

Re the second poll question, I think both options you present are misconceived. It's neither "accurate" nor "illegitimate." It's simply a symptom of the way we've set things up and some common belief/idea tendencies in the context of how we've set things up.

It sounds like you are viewing it as neutral. That is fine, but do you think there could be a more improved version of what we call economic organization?

People act in a manner they deem ‘worthy’.

This might be true if everyone had an equal amount of freedom with which to actuate their desires and potential, but there are structural elements within the economy which grant almost complete freedom to a few, while limiting the majority to practically losing their autonomy, as a function of the constraints on their range of options.

The systems of hierarchy are products of human social activity

On my view, the hierarchies are product of historic exploitation and violence. Hardly benign, even if what you mean by "human social activity," is morally neutral, it's fairly easy to see in my opinion, that the products of the historic activity is illegitimate given the cost paid to generate wealth for a few.

Why make such a weird poll?

I hoped to stimulate conversation. For the most part, the majority of people take our current system for granted. Framing the poll questions how I did can open someone's mind to potential structural flaws. Usually, we atomize all economic activity. So if you have a good job, you must be smart. The way the poll questions were framed in the context of one another, should cause you to consider the structural influences which can change the trajectory of individual outcomes. This is obviously going to be seen through the lense of your current ideology, and so the affect would be different on each person. I really appreciate you taking the time to share your insight.

As an individual, the national system that you face, is a given. You cannot hope to change it. On the other hand, there are 200+ such national systems. In terms of what matters to me, at least 100+ of these national systems work absolutely fine.

I disagree on both accounts. I do not believe it is a given, and I think people can absolutely change it. I would also disagree that 100+ work completely fine. When there is an accumulation of gross wealth at the top, deaths of despair and, for the first time in the history of developed countries, decreasing life spans in many regions, and the rise of populism, I think to say it is working just fine is highly inaccurate. Unless what you mean by "working just fine" is, "well me and the people I care about still got our paychecks," then if that's what you mean, sure, I could see why you would think that way.

As far as your other arguments about global geopolitics, I am not well read on the subject and cannot comment.

I agree, I believe people should try their best. I just view economic location as much more a function of deterministic trajectories than you do. When you say children often exceed their parent's economically, I do not share your optimism.

Furthermore, I believe the outcomes we experience, are really expressions of inherent flaws in the configuration of our system. That is to say, we look at someone on top and conclude, "there must have been something of merit in them, otherwise they would not be there." and the same logic, just reversed, applies to those on the bottom. I do not view the world this way. I view the inequality of the economic game, it's rigged nature if you will, is played out in the inequality of outcome we witness. The flaws which are baked in diminish equality of opportunity, which most people seem to believe in.

So the point is, I do not even think we have an accurate way of evaluating people's competence (as a function of their economic position), because their position economically was more or less determined, and so you cannot determine who is more or less competent. We cannot know who is more or less competent until we have a competition in which all of the players are equal. Therefore, economic outcomes, in my view, are just the final product of a system of sanctioned illegitimate inequality, and the hierarchies we experience cannot be a function of competence.

But do you believe what we perceive as consciousness is something different than the sum of its biological parts? Or is it just the sum of all the biological activity, thereby, not making it any different, just seeming to be different because of how it "appears to us"?

That manifestation, whatever you call it, the mind I guess, is different from brain activity in the same sense that life is different from chemical and biological activity.

I agree with everything you said but I am having a bit of trouble with this sentence. How is the mind different? Our perception of the self as a disembodied separate entity is an illusion, but how does it then become different than the processes? I guess just because it is the amalgam of those processes, and not the processes in and of themselves? Help me out?

honestly, I could not really say for sure. my gut is just to say something along the lines of, because everything came from a single point, the Big Bang, then everything could be said to have started as one thing. as oscillations are introduced in the system as entropy grows, the one rocks back and forth, and develops a kind of polarity, up and down, moving further from the center. eventually, each polarity becomes distinct enough, but remains in balance because of their unified starting position, and the fact that they are just deviations from the same center in different balancing directions. scale this up and you have the universe. haha take that for a grain of salt because it is a totally uninformed conjecture!

Here's something a bit peripheral ... https://humanparts.medium.com/the-danger-in-fake-positivity-and-spiritual-bypassing-c202040b8dd3?fbclid=IwAR3-R-geVAiM9-jahx94XAaZXPN4TgQtE4Vfnua8CcP-CWtdWzsglfmv9ms

This is something that drives me up the wall. most people feel pressured to pretend like everything's ok. but then nobody ever honestly says how they feel. it's all just sparkly veneer. drives me up the wall.

wow. thank you so much for making this post. I have an ACE score of 5. When I learned about ACEs, it was like suddenly it clicked, and I understood why my life was so hard and messed up. The trajectory I was set on was a bad one, and this took a huge weight off my shoulders.

That was very well stated, and I appreciate your input. One thing I would ask for you to comment on, because it gets to the heart of the intersection of this individual driving force and the collective one.

The 'self-made individual' is a fiction of the narcissistic personality, the rugged individualist, the deluded loner.

Given that humans have and do exploit one another, and certain economic factors could insurmountably supplant one's capacity for achieving their potential, where do we begin to create a system which enables free enterprise and the rewarding of ingenious or hardworking person's, while not allowing the weaker members to be washed from the collective continent, speaking to the poem you quoted?

I think this strikes to the heart of the relationship between social responsibility, and individual liberty. I do not think it is controversial to state that your childhood really sets a lifelong trajectory. Can we abandon this narrative that if you just work hard and make good choices you will succeed? I believe we should temper the western narrative of everyone deserves where they end up, and place more emphasis on social responsibility and economic determinism. I would be interested in reading your thoughts.

In my opinion this trend is only going to continue which is why I advocate for reimagining the idea of labor for income. As automation increases, aggregate demand will be displaced enough that the owners of corporations, as their consumer base loses buying power, will begin to use their political power to engineer some sort of baseline for the displaced workers. Their bottom line will demand it.

I think there is plenty of evidence to justify what I view as exploitation, and you would probably disagree with my definition. For example, we are told we live in a meritocracy, however, the majority of the Forbes' billionaire list inherited their income. They started on 3rd base so to speak. I would categorize this as an "exploit," or a way to game the system in a way. Like using a game shark on a video game. The rules are set up to supposedly "reward merit" yet some hack in cheats and appear claim to be meritorious.

Economic mobility has decreased since the middle class has begun to diminish, which is directly related to the adoption of neoliberal economic policies. This exploits working populations by expropriating would be benefits to them in the form of tax cuts for the rich. Exploitation, and this generates massive wealth at the top.

The idea of a kind of economic determinism, is powerful in our society. This means there are feedback loops, spiraling up and down. This simply means the trajectory you are set on early in life has the biggest impact on where you end up as an adult. That's why the greatest predictor of wealth of an adult is the income and education levels of their parents. This is all a type of exploitation, and when we maintain a narrative of rugged individualism, and meritocracy, this become perniciously exploitative, in my opinion.

As I said I think where we will diverge is how we define exploitation, with my definition being much broader than your's I would imagine.

This is a false problem caused by an unwillingness or inability to imagine consciousness as just another process. I can certainly understand that. It takes a conceptual leap and a realization that our precious sense of self is nothing special.

Would you say the self is an illusion, or a bi-product of brain activity?

Sometimes, as with Rockefeller, Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan in the latter half the 1800s.

Thanks for your input, I agree it can be a mixture, although I did vote for the illegitimate one, because I believe the majority of those with power earned it by some method of exploitation.

how do I delete comments?

I think your perspective is interesting. Would you say the The Inter Mind Model is basically idealism? Do you feel that imagining something like a CM (Conscious Mind) existing in CSc (Conscious Space) a violation of Ochamm's Razor? In my opinion, it would appear that although you may have great explanatory power with this theory, it seems to be adding unwarranted elements in order to resolve some of the difficulty which is presented in considering consciousness and how it relates to "physical" reality.

Here's the argument:
1. The ability to make choices is a necessary condition for the evaluation of evidence.
2. Evaluating evidence is a necessary condition for science.
3. Without free will there is no ability to make choices.
4. Without the ability to make choices, evaluation of evidence is impossible.
5. If evaluation of evidence is impossible, science is impossible.
6. There is no free will.
7. Therefore, science is impossible.

Premise one is wrong, therefore your conclusion does not follow

But I think you’re making an assumption that they have evolved simply to ‘continue’ their various processes for as long as possible.

There is more to our collaborating systems than mere biological mechanics. There is an elaborate information processing system, which relies not just on the symbiotic relationships within the organism, but relationships with the rest of the universe. This also consists of several different systems working symbiotically. But this system and these processes have not evolved to continue the biological mechanics of the body, but to acquire information about the entire system.

I’m not arguing against cause and effect, or determinism, for that matter. But the process by which we can predict future events from the information we have about past events is so far below our capacity as human beings that it’s almost laughable to reduce human experience to this.

Thank you for welcoming me!

I agreed with your criticism of my apparently reductionistic description of cogitation. I was merely trying to convey that I believe the consciousness that we experience is sort of a by-product of the brains efficiency maximizing symbol system, which it uses in information processing.

I also accept your criticism of me claiming to understand the brain. We have only begun to develop good knowledge pertaining to neuroscience, and I am not pretending to understand every nuance thereof.

The entire process of evolution seems to make things better at surviving. That is basically how it is required to function. It has two things, an environment, and an organism. The only medium of interaction between those is survivability. So I just cannot accept your argument that "human information processing is somehow geared for some higher thing than survival." In my opinion, your view is highly romantic, and sort-of theological. You are attempting to imbue an importance on human cognitive capacity, which I thing is not justified.

If you are not arguing against cause and effect or determinism, why are you suggesting there is some higher order significance in human cognition? Is cognition a function of the brain and nervous system? If it is, is it not bound to the rules of cause and effect? And if that is the case, isn't imagining all of this higher order stuff just a lack of information. As Sam Harris argues, if we have perfect information about the brain and the physical state of every particle in the body, could we not predict outcomes of human behavior?

No, no differences, for the 'will' is merely some part of the brain, and the same for the 'mind'. No metaphysics here; all is physical. No supernatural, no intangible, no hocus-pocus. Those distinct realms fail because they'd still have to exchange energy in the materialistic way, and so they wouldn't be non physical. It's like that someone wants there to be 'free will' because we can pick up other people's brainwaves. Well, who knows if that is, but it doesn't matter, for it would just be another input for the fixed will to chew on. The wider the dynamically changing fixed will becomes, via learning and experience, the better its fixed results. We may do or think something tomorrow that we wouldn't have done today.

Well said, and this is why I think the people who argue, "well if there is no free will why are we even having this discussion? You can't convince me to change my mind," are misguided by there belief that "determinism = fatalism." but even if you were deterministically programmed to share your world view, it can still have an affect on another being and their ideas. We are shaping each other in a kind of collective fashion. We are all dominoes forever falling into each other and constantly reshaping each other's velocities and directions of travel.

I really liked your argument that even if you are a duelist or an idealist, the non physical phenomena still has a physical and hence caused mechanic to it, otherwise it would not be able to interact with the physical. You bring a lot of interesting ideas to the table.

As so, other or higher brain areas can then access the global result/qualia produced and represented in consciousness, and go deeper with it, if need be, this being part of why the brain evolved consciousness as useful. The brain developed its own symbolic internal language, using qualia symbols (which is quite amazing), and so it could be that these are good shortcut notation for the brain to continue on with, and also, as another part of usefulness, would be good to put into memory as a whole, to have more quickness when referenced.

This is very interesting to me. According to this, what we perceive as "the self," could just be the product of this symbolic communication within the brain. Perhaps what appears to be our "self" is also just another program in the brain, a kind of, compiler, or organizer of sorts. Either way, I think it is clear that these processes have evolved to continue the biological mechanics of the body, which is really several different systems working symbiotically (consider the influence of the gut microbiota).

I think it is painfully clear to see, there is no driver, there is no "influencing spirit" and so what humans usually refer to as "free will" or that aspect of the collective organism that is our body, is really just the output of these several inputs, which themselves are causally determined, and thus, there is no such thing as a "free will" or an "agent which causes."

Yes, and so it turn out that free will, as other than the will being free to operate when there is no coercion (which is trivial and not the same 'free'), has nothing to be free of—it just kind of sounds like a great thing to have.

So I guess where you and I would have difference, is you believe there is some kind of meta phenomenon of the mind, some will, which affects reality, you would just quibble with the qualifier "free."

It sounds like you and I are in agreement.

Seriously, though, it is that nature has led us into the illusion that when a thought comes along seemingly out of nowhere that we thought of it instantly in consciousness, thinking we have conscious agency.

I agree, "free" will is an illusion. There is no homunculus initiating causation that could be said to serve as some kind of driving force in our minds. We could have an executive function, but this is not a ghost in a machine, but rather, is itself another deterministic program which serves supervisory functions.

…Until, for some, informed by science, who realize that there is an opaque first storey of the neurological beneath our second story.

Could you elaborate on this?

Ok, then it seems like we both agree, randomness does not generate free will. I had a very hard time understanding your poem, so take that for what it's worth. If you could speak less obscurely it might help my pea brain out.

I agree you do not need free will to quarantine criminals. I was simply relaying the argument that Daniel Dennett makes. And I do not agree with Daniel Dennett. However, free will is still a major factor in the way our society views individual humans, and I do believe this is problematic, because it pretends that humans could have done other than they did/do, and so views them through a distorted lens.

And I like your statement about the uncaused having no information going into it, and therefore being random. I never thought of that before! However, I think this is a case against using the phrase "free will," because, as your sentence suggests, even what we would consider free, is not that at all. Hence, why don't people just stop pretending that this idea of free will is even coherent?

Usually worst?

The will is just as ‘free’ as random is.
Though we’re determined to survive each quiz,
A spanner sometimes gets thrown in the works,
Preventing the fixed will from being a wiz.

no, not worst. In the context of attempting to create a case that there is such a thing as "free will" by invoking quantum indeterminism, suggesting the best you can get is something that is obviously not free, is an effective way to show the impotence of such an invocation. If I had said "randomness at worst," that implies there is a better, non-random outcome, which would go against the logic of what I was attempting to suggest.

as far as your poem, I do not understand what you are saying. It seems like you are saying something along the lines of randomness = free, which is incoherent in my opinion. the remaining lines suggest that even though the will is fixed by a deterministic (cause and effect universe), the "will" is only partially constrained by spanners. this does not really make sense in my opinion. perhaps if you stated it in a different way I could follow you, or perhaps my intelligence is not sufficiently high to track with your thought process.

indeterminism gives you randomness at best, ie not free, and there is no evidence that what occurs at the level of the particle scales up to sufficiently complex systems

If there is something that can be described as "will" (typically defined as choosing something, or causing something to occur in an uncompelled manner), I believe that neuroscience or biology will eventually be able to describe it, without invoking a homunculus.

Our universe works on cause and effect, as all science relies upon. Arguing that there is a "Free Will" boils down to special pleading as far as I can tell. It is basically like saying, "God is an uncaused cause." In order for the will to be free, it essentially must be able to manifest uncaused causes.

We know this is not the case. We know that a person's upbringing and environment play a huge role in determining which choices are available to them. Are you free to choose what you were not aware of, or what did not occur to you, or what was unavailable to you at a given time? The answer is obvious.

Even the most capable philosophers of mind who would fall into the compatibilist camp, (which happens to be a majority of philosophers) have not envisioned a compelling argument in my opinion. Daniel Dennett basically argues that the notion of free will has value in terms of personal psychological coherence and criminal justice. I do not find that a compelling reason whatsoever. I find it to be an avoidance of what to me, appears rather obvious. That everything in our universe operates under conditions of cause and effect, we have no evidence of minds existing apart from brains (or I guess in a few decades, apart from cybernetic neural networks), therefore, phenomenon which can be described as "mind," of which will can be categorized as, also operates under the principle of cause and effect. If the effect (that which is perceived to be willed) is resulting from prior causation, it cannot be said to be free.

I agree completely with your sentiment. Yes, the economic system functions as a machine, in the respect that you have described. That is to say, that humans exchange their time and life, in order to obtain units of exchange, in order to perpetuate their physical body. A really great article on Psychology Today titled "The Bonus Effect," highlights how when humans do things for financial gain, the work is done at a lower quality. Furthermore, because our system requires you to engage in some kind of "gainful employment," you are required to bend your values to what is being required by the system itself. You could argue that the "priorities of the system" are determined by consumerist choices, however, I think that is naive. When you factor in that there are distortions that exist in the system, meaning how human behavior is really confined to what is economically beneficial, you see that consumer choice plays a secondary role.

To summarize, the economic machine functions such that humans are reduced to cogs in its machinations. This is necessarily dehumanizing.

Contrary to what many people have indicated in this thread, humans are not engaging in a good exchange in this system. Trading technological comfort, or the printing press, by exchanging your literal humanity is not to live "the good life," it is to exist in a state of dying a little bit more every day, as your humanity is exchanged to obtain the means of survival, and the very engagement in this system, destroys any intrinsic meaning to life anyways, because everything is commodified, and you are reduced to an apparatus, a number on a screen, and a value in an economic calculation which serves to distort understanding. I could go on and on but I think I have said more than enough.

Please let me know where I have erred in my reasoning.

Yes, we can resist our inclinations and go against them but it's an uphill battle. Moreover this is strong evidence that we didn't choose our preferences at all. — TheMadFool

I would agree with this, although I would add an additional element. I would argue that the human is compelled by biological/survival needs which overrides any sort of "volition" we may have. For example, I cannot choose to sleep for 5 days in a row, or when I wake up, I am compelled by my body to eat food.

Like Robert Sapolsky says, what we label as "free will" is just undiscovered biology.

I have heard some people argue that the biological mechanisms may cause the lifting of your hand, but the reason you lifted your hand was because you chose to. So libertarians would try to make a distinction between reasons and causes. I do not find that compelling.

I agree with your general thrust, that behavior seems to be caused, and is therefore, not "free."