Because the kind of thing that you or I 'am' is not at all clear. And without knowing that, you might as well have said anything at all. — StreetlightX

I disagree; the kind of thing we are would include aspects like "has free will", or "doesn't have free will". Why would we need to start by figuring out the "kind" of thing we are in order to address a question like "Do we have free will?" On the contrary, these very questions and their answers are the things that describe the kind of "thing" we are. We need to start by asking and answering those questions in order to find out about ourselves, not the other way around. Starting the other way around is completely unintelligble, which must be why you're so hung up on this perceived problem.

one really ought to specify, from a wide field of contenders, which notion of free will is in play. — StreetlightX

The one I'm putting into play is mine, not someone else's.

I think we're in agreement.

Why would we need to start by figuring out the "kind" of thing we are in order to address a question like "Do we have free will? — Noble Dust

Because it is basic philosophical practice. Figuring out 'if we have free will' is a noble goal, but not before asking if the question itself makes any sense. What kind of thing is 'free will' such that 'we' might or might not have it to begin with? And correlatively, what kinds of things are 'we' such that we might or might not possess 'free will', as distinct from something that does not posses it? Perhaps the very idea of 'free will' is a simple grammatical error, a thesis which might be 'not even wrong'. It's simple philosophical hygiene, of getting your starting point in order.

I think my problem is that the idea of not being sure "what kind of thing we are" is too vague. Can you elaborate on what the options are here of "what kind of thing we are"?

Presumably my teapot does not have free will, and I do. What is the relevant difference between me and my teapot, as far as free will is concerned? And note that a tautologous answer is not acceptable: one can't say, oh, you have the ability to make choices where your teapot doesn't. Because that just *is* free will (if you define free will by choice).

Presumably my teapot does not have free will, and I do. What's is the relevant difference between me and my teapot, as far as free will is concerned? — StreetlightX

You have consciousness; the teapot doesn't.

Which is relevant how exactly, in the context of free will?

*And should you really be trying to define one ambiguous idea by another, entirely ambiguous idea?

Because it's a tautology.

Because it's philosophically useless.

OK, if you want to proceed with a discussion based on a tautology, don't let me stop you.

Free will is predicated on consciousness. This is getting boring. You appear to employ an approach that doesn't allow for anything to actually be established. At some point, you have to allow yourself to take something at face value, just so you have somewhere to begin. The most obvious place to begin is experience. Consciousness is where we experience.

*And should you really be trying to define one ambiguous idea by one other, entirely ambiguous idea? — StreetlightX

Please illuminate us all with the ideas that you personally have defined unambiguously, upon which your philosophy is presumably predicated.

Free will is predicated on consciousness. — Noble Dust

Why?

You appear to employ an approach that doesn't allow for anything to actually be established. At some point, you have to allow yourself to take something at face value, just so you have somewhere to begin. The most obvious place to begin is experience. Consciousness is where we experience. — Noble Dust

No, I'm literally asking what it is you are talking about about, and you're dancing around this point. What I'm asking for is quite simple: establish a distinction, and explain why it matters. This is the ground zero for any argument, let alone philosophy.

If your question does not require new information in order to be answered, that's all we're going to get. — Πετροκότσυφας

What, exactly, is your point?

What kind of thing is 'free will' such that 'we' might or might not have it to begin with? — StreetlightX

Isn't simply an argument about whether we are compelled to act in particular ways, by factors outside our conscious control, on the one side, versus the idea that we are active agents who make decisions, and act in ways which are not determined, or not wholly determined, by such factors.

Sam Harris, for example, apparently believes that we don't exercise free will, because of the existence of subconscious drivers which by definition are beyond the scope of our conscious control.

The counter argument is that humans are capable of acting spontaneously and freely and that their actions are not wholly determined by subconscious or genetic or social conditioning, but originate with the human qua free agent.

So, if we define free will as the ability to make choices and choice as the ability to imagine different scenarios, entertain their outcomes and pursue them, then the kind of subjects who have free will are those who have a sense of self, possess imagination, desires and are able to act on them. Then clearly you and I have free will, while your teapot doesn't. — Πετροκότσυφας

Well, this is certainly a better definition than any that has been given in this thread so far. It only took four pages for someone to actually say anything remotely substantial. And even if I were to lay aside the gaping problem with that definition (which would entail that if I am not able to act on a desire, by dint of having no money, say, I no longer have free will - a rather bizarre upshot of that definition), it still remains a half-finished thought for the purposes of answering whether or not 'we' have free will.

The next step, if you're going to consider whether or not we have this kind of 'free will', lies in explaining what it would mean to not have it. It's about this point that I imagine people start to talk about 'determinism' or, as Wayfarer has, things like 'conscious control'. But then, what is the relation between the two? What theory of causality is at work here? Where would 'we', apparently free agents, figure into such a theory? Or what theory of consciousness is at work here, if one is going to bring 'consciousness' into it?

Note, by the way, this is the only way in which one can make any progress about this question over 'free will'. This is how philosophy proceeds, by clarifying questions. 'Answers' are the detritus, the leftover scraps, of philosophical questioning, they fall out, like dead leaves, from live questions. Anyone who has an issue with this shouldn't be doing philosophy. Deleuze put it nicely: "Philosophical theory is an elaborately developed question, and nothing else; by itself and in itself, it is not the resolution to a problem, but the elaboration, to the very end, of the necessary implications of a formulated question." Or Zizek: "Theory involves the power to abstract from our starting point in order to reconstruct it subsequently on the basis of it's presuppositions." The answer to the question of whether or not we have free will, will fall out from the sense that can be made of the question itself. Any attempt to 'skip straight to the answer' is vacuity.

So, if we define free will as the ability to make choices and choice as the ability to imagine different scenarios, entertain their outcomes and pursue them, then the kind of subjects who have free will are those who have a sense of self, possess imagination, desires and are able to act on them. Then, clearly, you and I have free will, while your teapot doesn't. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes. I agree.

For clarity, I would add that choices are constrained and influenced so that outcomes are always unclear. One can try but cannot predict.

There are two aspects of the human condition that affect can choice of direction (we direct ourselves towards future action). The first is creative imagination. The second is will. Both are influenced and constrained in a multitude of ways.

There are two aspects of the human condition that affect can choice of direction (we direct ourselves towards future action). The first is creative imagination. The second is will. Both are influenced and constrained in a multitude of ways. — Rich

How about the knowledge we can (!) have about what is causing our own behaviour at a certain moment, this simplified internal representation of a complex causal structure is what partially governs both our actions and future orientations, never mind the observation that it's the obfuscation of this knowledge from the outside world which gives us a sense of freedom with it.

How about the knowledge we can (!) have about what is causing our own behaviour at a certain moment, this simplified internal representation of a complex causal structure is what partially governs both our actions and future orientations, never mind the observation that it's the obfuscation of this knowledge from the outside world which gives us a sense of freedom with it. — Gooseone

It's too complicated to ever know. We can understand some aspects.

Though the supposed proof against free will is characterized by outside observers being able to get better knowledge about our behaviour then we ourselves are able to gather through introspection. Being able to understand somewhat coherently 'why' we act in a certain manner gives us the means to willingly adapt our behaviour; aside from making a case for determinism and against free will, ignoring the causal power of internally stored information (where there are all sorts of problems considering which information we embody, have conscious access to, etc.) also makes a case for behaviourism on a psychological level.

Isn't it obvious that, even from our own point of view, our choices are deterministic?

You choose based on your preferences, how you feel, and on the set of alternatives.

If your feelings are subconscious, and you don't know their reasons,you're still going by an assessment of the situation..

Sometimes you make some sort of intuitive, rough "game-theory" (in quotes because it usually isn't explicit, mathematical, or even conscious) assessment of a situation. Whether that game-theory assessment is intuitive or mathematical doesn't matter. You're still acting based on your predisposition, feeling, and assessment of the situation.

Even from your own point-of view, your choices are deterministic.

Compatibility? Does it make any sense to quibble about whether deterministic responses, resulting from external situations, and our predispositions, are free-will? I'd call it a meaningless question, but if a Y/N answer is needed, isn't "No" the one that seems more reasonable?

Michael Ossipoff

Isn't it obvious that, even from our own point of view, our choices are deterministic? — Michael Ossipoff

It is not only not obvious, it is contrary to all of my experiences. Determinism it's a story fabricated and propagated by certain interests who wish to be the "guardians" of the Laws of Nature (scientists and the whole medical industry). There is simply not scintilla of evidence to support determinism, no more than any evidence that the priests of religion have any insight into the ways of the Lord. The whole story is a concoction and some sort of dogma designed to appeal to the self-appointed elite who have done nothing more than create their own religion centered around the "Laws of Nature".

If a person can make a free decision without reference to ANY experience, would prove false the notion that free will is an illusion. Such is conceivable.
Since this could never be done, the statement that free will is an illusion is a valid one.

Making all of human experience an illusion is about all that science hads to offer which makes it about on par with Hinduism. As for my self, I'm making choices all of the time, and it is in these acts of choice that humans experience the creativity of life. Making up the story of Laws of Nature is just another biblical-like story.

With that said, there are lots of humans who wish to believe that their actions are in the hands of God and others who prefer their own substitution term "Laws of Nature". I guess it makes them feel at ease that their fate is in the hands of such supernatural power - I guess.

You science-hate is dominating you. Make peace with science.

You equate science with Nazism and everything evil. Want to try living in the pre-science Middle Ages, or the nearly-pre-science Inqujsition? You'd love that.

It is not only not obvious, it is contrary to all of my experiences. — Rich

As Schopenhaur said, "You can do what you will, but you can't willl what you will."

Or you could say:

You can't want or not want something because you want to want or not want it.

Your choices are determined by your predispositions (learned or built-in preferences, likes, dislikes), and the information available to you about your surroundings.

Rather like a Roomba.

Not only are your choices deterministic, but in fact they're deterministic from your own point of view.

You can't very well call that "free-will".

There is simply not scintilla of evidence to support determinism

...other than the fact that every choice you make is for a reason--a reason that is a pre-disposed preference of yours or a fact about your surroundings. ...and you can't choose your wants and preferences? :)

Michael Ossipoff

As Schopenhaur said, "You can do what you will, but you can't willl what you will." — Michael Ossipoff

A totally meaningless statement. The kind of linguistic parlor games that some philosophers enjoy playing. People make choices and then use energy to try to enact them. This is the experience of life.

This whole subjugation of humans to a supernatural God (or equally undefinable set of Natural Laws, Natural Selection) is a totally fabricated story that appeals to people who are more comfortable with the idea that their lives are fated, that there exists a natural elite class (a favorite of Hinduism) and the answers to life can be found via some revealed word from God (Natural Laws) that are passed through some selected priests (scientists). There is no difference between the religious belief in God or the equally religious belief in Natural Laws and Natural Selection - with similar consequences.


Of course the chosen ones reap the economic rewards but are also responsible for the mass murders that are sowed by the repugnant ideas of some people being more entitled to live than others or fated to live more elite lives than others.

People make choices and then use energy to try to enact them. This is the experience of life. — Rich

I've told why that isn't your experience. But a person who is sufficiently committed to their beliefs can convince themselves of a fictitious experience.

You're committed to your anti-science, evolution-denying position, and we should just agree to disagree.

Michael Ossipoff

I've told why that isn't your experience. But a person who is sufficiently committed to their beliefs can convince themselves of a fictitious experience. — Michael Ossipoff

Oh, it is definitely my experience. I am constantly making choices throughout my day and that religions and science can convince people that they are not making choices by appealing to some supernatural forces, that have them locked in by some deadly embrace, is absolutely amazing, but that is the nature of people. Some people find such a story quite appealing.

I am constantly making choices throughout my day — Rich

...and those choices are governed, determined, by your predispositions, and your surroundings. And that's your experience.

You don't realize that you're more closely-related to a Roomba than you want to admit.

Michael Ossipoff

...and those choices are governed, determined, by your predispositions, and your surroundings. And that's your experience.

You don't realize that you're more closely-related to a Roomba than you want to admit. — Michael Ossipoff

There is no magical force governing my behavior nor am I possessed by some demons that mysteriously take over all of my actions. My choices are influenced and affected by memories, habits and other forces around me, but I choose which direction I will attempt to move and what action I will attempt to take. Outcomes are always unpredictable.

It is ironic how science begins to resemble religion once it decides to base its theories on supernatural forces such as Natural Selection, Natural Laws, Big Bangs, Illusions and such. It's like science is simply recreating mythology of the past simply to placate its faithful. Honestly, I can't tell the difference.

It is ironic how science begins to resemble religion once it decides to base its theories on supernatural forces such as Natural Selection, Natural Laws, Big Bangs, Illusions and such. It's like science is simply recreating mythology of the past simply to placate its faithful. Honestly, I can't tell the difference. — Rich

I would argue that ideas and systems of ideas--religions, for relating to the sacred/divine; intellectual traditions such as philosophy and science, for asking and answering questions--by themselves are harmless.

They become oppressive/repressive, harmful, etc. when people co-opt them for purposes, goals, intentions, agendas, etc. that have little or nothing to do with their inherent purpose and meaning.

I doubt that the earliest scientists intended for their practice to be used to subjugate and/or dominate people and nature in the name of "progress".

I doubt that the founders of any religion intended for their tradition to be used turn people into pawns in political chess matches.

Or maybe I am naïve.

I don't know. I suspect that the majority of people of the world's various religious faiths/traditions and the majority of the world's intellectuals practicing various traditions such as philosophy and science quietly disapprove of the dumbed-down popularization and politicization by people like Jerry Falwell and Sam Harris of what has taken millennia of sacrifice and hard work to develop, refine and preserve.