No, the correct explanation of free will is, having alternative futures available, — Syamsu

That is not a standard definition of free-will. A typical definition of free-will looks like this:

free will
/ˌfrē ˈwil/
noun
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

I'm not sure what it is that you are describing, but it isn't what most of the rest of the world thinks of as free-will.

The only thing bizarre is your failure to follow a simple example. Gravity works. We knew that millenia before we knew what gravity was. Free-will is as self-evident as gravity. I choose to do x, x happens.

If you think I don't have free-will, then the burden of proof is on you.

Pantagruel What does that mean? You have to explain how it works, just like with everything else. Are you just asserting it is real, without explanation of how it works? — Syamsu

People knew that massive objects fall to earth millenia before Isaac Newton explained "how it works."

It is self-evident that people have free-will. Whether or not anyone can explain "how it works" is another whole issue.

↪Pantagruel Sorry, you should just actually read my post. — Syamsu

I did read your post. I just don't believe free will is a problem, it is a phenomenon.

Ok, well that appears to be one person's summary. And even if there is such a thing as randomness, how does this imply that the will is subject to randomness?

I think you have overstated the case. Besides which, the evidence of free will is manifest. Free will doesn't require justification, it most obviously is. It is the denial of free will that needs proof.

the common objection of professional philosophers that free will is random, and therefore meaningless, — Syamsu

I have never heard the argument that free will is random. Which professional philosophers make this claim?

Could Dennett be that confused?
Or, is he a Zombie? — hypericin

Based on other arguments I've read of his, this seems plausible.

Well, surely it is true that man evolved as a social creature before he developed a genuine sense of self? That at least is George Mead's hypothesis, which is the basis for my reasoning.

Think of a lone individual - how would the process of self-identity ever develop? Life would be nothing but an unending series of environmental interactions. Conscious, maybe, but not self-conscious. Self is a social product.

Well, you phrase the question as the individual or the State, but the State appears only late in human history. If instead of State we substitute community or society, then community precedes and makes possible individuality.

This - It is a byproduct of hierarchical organisation of systems. An emergent phenomenon

Except more neutrally put:

An embedded phenomenon which is a function of the evolution of complex natural systems

What kinds of impacts does sub categorizing our understanding of the world have in my our total progress? — Braindead

I think it is just part of the natural evolution of knowledge. Like any system, it evolves into a greater and greater differentiation of sub-systems, but these sub-systems ultimately are united at a higher level.

This 'top-level synthesis' used to be embodied in the person of the so-called 'Renaissance man." Now, I think the idealistic concept of a "theory of everything" is the most common form.

To sum up, consciousness is the awareness of the real effects of consciousness as embodied and documented in culture:

The evolutionary appearance of mind or intelligence takes place when the whole social process of experience and behavior is brought within the experience of any one of the separate individuals implicated therein, and when the individual's adjustment to the process is modified and refined by the awareness or consciousness which he thus has of it.

One might say, our theoretical (cum practical) understanding of the nature of consciousness (edit: as sociality) ...is consciousness.

What, for you, is indubitable? — A Seagull

Cogito ergo sum

I was just reading something by Mead that shed some light on this topic for me, as it offers a perspective on specialization and universe of discourse. Certainly, we can see in this thread that different universes of discourse are colliding, in particular one that is extremely logo-centric, versus some others that are less focused, more generalized. If this same topic were discussed by two logo-centric thinkers, presumably the conversation would have assumed a much different path.

Mead's concept of the social mind adds an interesting dimension; my summary is in the thread How did consciousness evolve?

Mead's symbolic behaviourism is a systemic theory of embedded cognition which precedes the formal appearance of both embedding and systems. Ideas exist as the functional relationship between environmental cues which act as stimuli for behaviours. Thus, for example, grass becomes "food" only with the appearance of an organism capable of digesting it. This is what is known generally as the "biotic environement."

This idea of the organic-environmental complex can be extended further though. The set of presuppositions shared by thinking beings likewise describes a functional-social milieu. So, for example, thinkers who share a common perspective on the role played by logic, or empirical observation, or ethics, all define unique 'environments of thought' in which unique types of reasoning become possible.

Mead says, "We must regard mind, then, as arising and developing within the social process, within the empirical matrix of social interactions." Social sub-groups can and do develop their own idiosyncratic cultures. But is this a good thing? Habermas sees runaway specialization as one of the main drivers of the alienation and social dissolution of modernity. And it seems evident that, for specialization to have meaning, there must be another conscious project which aims at re-integrating all these disparate - or at least separate - perspectives.

Yet I made the same statement here and you didn't say anything of the sort.

It's only after unenlightened started his bandwagon that you decided to jump on. — Harry Hindu

Actually, I just grew tired of what was obviously a one-sided discussion. @unenlightened obviously has more patience than me.

I also showed that logical and reasonable are synonyms of each other. Do I seriously need to provide you with the definition of "synonym" as well? — Harry Hindu

Yes, I saw how you cherry-picked the definition you used also. I surveyed a number of other definitions available online that did NOT offer that simplistic equivocation.

You're mistaken. I have shown that fdrake and Pantragruel agreed with me that logic is indeed necessary. It is only creativesoul that seems to have a problem with this. However I have shown that although creativesoul claims that they disagree, they keep attempting to use logic to make their case. — Harry Hindu

Kindly do not misrepresent my position. I consider that a reportable offence.

Logic is one constituent of reason. Reason most emphatically does NOT reduce to logic. Reason also functions through analogy, intuition, synthesis, etc.

Frankly, this seems to me to be trivially true and trivially evident; I can't imagine why anyone would have trouble with this.

It was the unions who gave us the 5 hour work week — StreetlightX

Wow, that is short!

What I was referring to was the hermenutic circle, where the meaning of anything (word, concept, idea) is determined by the context in which it occurs, while simultaneously the context is composed of such meanings. Then the concept of "thinking" is different for us to the extent that we have different contextual-histories involving the concept of thinking.

we've reached a point in the evolution of our language-use where words are being convoluted and loaded with with meanings that contradict how words are used in other instances, which just makes words useless if they can mean their opposites in the same context. — Harry Hindu

I think that you have hit on a key idea here. Words are indeed polysemous, and in the very lively sense you allude to here. But it isn't necessarily in the "same context" as it is I think in "overlapping contexts". Whatever our current state of accord might be, the foundational experiences that circumscribe your life-world are necessarily different than mine.

So, how do we reasonably reconcile these opposing viewpoints to the point where our opposing viewpoints aren't actually in opposition, but were seemingly in opposition prior to any reasonable reconciliation? — Harry Hindu

Yes, that is the challenge to which dialectic aspires.

So, is the "reasonable reconciliation" ...arrived at via correct or incorrect reasoning? — Harry Hindu

Hmmm. Can you arrive at correct conclusions from incorrect premises? Insofar as the conclusion is viewed as a synthesis of its premises it is not possible to do so. This was Aldous Huxley's construal of the ends-means relationship. One cannot achieve a goal through methods that contradict the goal because the means are constitutive of the end.

However some people do hold true beliefs without being aware of the foundations of those beliefs. Also, it seems quite possible to think completely reasonably, and yet arrive a spurious beliefs. If significant information is missing. The history of science testifies to this.

1) according to the rules of logic
his answer is perfectly reasonable — Harry Hindu

This says that logic is reasonable, not that reason is logical.

If it is logical that if A then B, then it is reasonable to believe B given A.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to believe that particles can exist simultaneously in two different places because scientific experiments have established this as a fact. However this paradoxical result is not logical. In fact, it arguably contradicts all the rules of logic.

What does it mean by "reasonable" if not "logical" in the classical sense? — Harry Hindu

It says reasonable precisely because reason does not reduce to mere logic. Otherwise it would have said logical.

Again, you fundamentally misconstrue.

Dialectic presupposes disagreement.

Seems to support what I said, not what you said. Bravery comes in degrees, not on or off / true or false. Some are braver than others. Tell me, Pantagruel, what room does the word "braver" have in your example? You seem to say that the word would be meaningless if you were to apply dialectic logic to bravery. So it seems that either you have the wrong idea about dialectic logic, and how and when to use it, and it reflects in your example. — Harry Hindu

Au contraire. It was a perfectly valid choice of a dialectical problem. It was never intended to be conclusive, only illustrative (as I have repeatedly pointed out, yet you inexplicably refuse to acknowledge).

"Dialectical thinking refers to the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most economical and reasonable reconciliation of seemingly contradictory information"

Dialectical Thinking

Certainly your counter-argument was applicable, and amplified the issue. In doing so, you thereby participated in the process of dialectical reasoning, and gave a strong argument yourself for the use of many-valued (versus dyadic) logic.

Having read the Critique of Dialectical Reason a couple of months ago. I feel I have a pretty solid grasp of the basics.

"Many-valued logics are non-classical logics. They are similar to classical logic because they accept the principle of truth-functionality, namely, that the truth of a compound sentence is determined by the truth values of its component sentences (and so remains unaffected when one of its component sentences is replaced by another sentence with the same truth value). But they differ from classical logic by the fundamental fact that they do not restrict the number of truth values to only two: they allow for a larger set W of truth degrees."

Many Valued Logic

This is all I proposed. Dialectical logic is just a different style of many valued logic one which is not limited to a dyadic truth relationship. I only ever suggested it as an example, and never proposed it as authoritative. In fact, I specifically stipulated that. I have nothing beyond that to contribute to this particular conversation.

You attempted to show an example of it's use and failed miserably — Harry Hindu

Or else you simply failed to grasp it because it doesn't fit in your procrustean perspective..

So, it seems to me that you think dialectic logic is the solution to everything — Harry Hindu

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that it exists, in contrast with your claim that everything reduces to true and false. Cheers.

And one could argue his voter base gets what they voted for. — Marchesk

If by that you mean what they deserve, then :up:

One could argue the various communist countries have attempted this approach, and have noticeably failed on the freedom front. I'm skeptical that freedom can take care of itself, because there are always those would like to have power, or deny it to others. That's why rights have to be explicitly protected. — Marchesk

Sure. And on the other hand, does it seem that Trump is driven by the welfare of his voter base?

Sure. But the essence of the man is the synthesis of all his past moments, so the synchronic condition still exists.

Yes, I picked that up...wrote my post before I saw yours.

Effectively this agrees with your substantive point: freedom to choose, without the freedom to determine the very choices set out, is no freedom at all. — StreetlightX

But isn't this the entire nature of freedom as it is really experienced? Sartre characterizes us as theoretically free, but at the same time constrained to choose within already well-defined material contexts, what he calls praxis.

Isn't the very nature freedom that it must be limited/defined in order to be actualized? Sydney Hook says that the limitation of possibilities is the necessary condition for the liberation of possibilities, and I tend to agree with this view. (Metaphysics of Pragmatism).

I find it very strange that you don't see your own presuppositions of truth in every sentence that you make - that every statement you make is about how things are - from what dialectical logic is to what your thoughts are. — Harry Hindu

That's because I am capable of dialectical reasoning.

If A mans his post in the face of an attack, then A is brave.
But A can man his post for a while, but abandon it when the fighting becomes too fierce.
So A is both brave and not-brave.

I guess the whole point is that there are scenarios where the true/false (binary) state is inadequate. Even in physics, particles can be in more that one state simultaneously, it's what makes quantum computing possible. So it seems that there are empirical conditions in which the true/false dyad breaks down. Nature, it seems, never learned boolean logic.

So in terms of the OP, can we achieve a mutual understanding such that both your notion, that logic is foundational, and my notion that logic transcends the boolean form, co-exist?

If you are asking if I think that there is any logic that doesn't presuppose that there is such a thing as true and false, then no. — Harry Hindu

Translation:
X = Does Harry Hindu think (Y = there is a logic that doesn't suppose T/F)?

Interpretation 1: Harry Hindu believes believes X - truth about Harry Hindu.

Interpretation 2: Multi-valued (dialectical) logic does not fit the simplistic interpretation T/F) - so Y is not true, in the sense at the very least that it is incomplete.

If we are talking about interpretation one, we could basically stick "I think" in front of everything that everybody says, and it will always be true. But why would we ignore the external referents of propositions in this way?

If you are asking if I think that there is any logic that doesn't presuppose that there is such a thing as true and false, then no. — Harry Hindu

Even if we allow that it is trivially true that my statement is really my statement, you asked merely if there was any logic that doesn't presuppose true and false. I merely pointed out that dialectical logic transcends the true-false simpliciter dyad. I'm prepared to acknowledge that it is always true that I have made any statement I have made. Are you prepared to expand the concept of modal logic beyond the scope of true and false?

Does this statement presuppose some truth about what you think, and that you think? — Harry Hindu

The statement is not about me, it is about dialectical logic. You are conflating the reference of the statement with its origin. Smacks of the genetic fallacy. Dialectical logic can be many-valued.

And so we find ourselves arguing about the length of the stick and who has the better grasp on it. And the original question is quite forgotten. — unenlightened

Seems like we have a real live example of a conflict to resolve....

f you're asking if I think that there is any kind of logic that isn't presupposed by every sentence and every thought, then no.

If you are asking if I think that there is any logic that doesn't presuppose that there is such a thing as true and false, then no. — Harry Hindu

I think dialectical logic transcends the simple true-false dyad of traditional logic.

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/4/4/69/pdf