As I said, I am still not sure why tossing dice has anything to do with personal agency. Consider the thought experiment I proposed earlier. All murderers in some hypothetical deterministic world are completely governed in their actions by natural law, save one that has a dice that they use to decide if they should shoot someone. Are they more free? Are they more responsible? — simeonz

Well said. I think the whole determinism indeterminism debate is a red herring. That’s not actually what people care about when they think of freedom and agency. I don’t think you need the possibility of doing otherwise to be free or morally responsible. All you need is uncertainty of the future, and lack of external impositions.

Exactly right. Det or indet do not play a role in the question about the freedom of will. In general, everything mentioned does not play a role, because the question is wrongly put. From WHAT is the will free? Certainly not from the laws of nature.

I suppose my terms are that no decision is random ergo, no decision is truly free because it is the direct consequence of something that happened before.
This is fundamentally what I can't disprove. I hope that makes sense. — Barondan

Here's what you can do to prove the reality of free will to yourself. This is something which you must prove to yourself, because the idea that someone could prove it to you is counterproductive because that presupposes cause and effect. You can take an object, any object but preferably unbreakable, and hold it above the floor. Decide for yourself, that you will drop it to the floor, yet refrain from dropping it, knowing that you will drop it, but not at any specific time. Wait for a while, then drop it at a time determined only by your mind without any other influence. If you are capable of doing this, then you know that you have free will.

Wait for a while, then drop it at a time determined only by your mind without any other influence. If you are capable of doing this, then you know that you have free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

Free will is a feeling, nothing more. It can be predetermined or coincidence. Actions cannot come from free will. Free will is not a force.

Why do that for human beings? This seems rather selective and intentional on our part. — simeonz

I don't do it just for humans. I am suggesting all of life has intelligence, most of the time acting in a coordinated, habitual manner.


"As I said, I am still not sure why tossing dice has anything to do with personal agency."

I don't think it does. It is a misunderstanding of how life perpetuates itself. Life is intelligent, with direction. It is not random.

"hypothetical deterministic world are completely governed in their actions by natural law"

There is no natural law. However, there is intelligent, habitual practice. To understand life, one must observe life, not billiard balls.

We all feel we are making chicos. Determinists feel that this feeling is just a mirage. That in reality, there is no choice. So, they must show:

1) How did bouncing molecules create such a feeling?

2) How did it become so pervasive?

Without, such accounting, humans should discard the determinist mythology and go with the feeling of choice. Why create a fable just to deny an obvious faculty of being human? To do so, would demonstrate how easily it is to get people to embrace myths as they did during ancient Greece. Have we really evolved or are we just doing the same thing?

The other side must show how a feeling can move an arm.

The other side must show how a feeling can move an arm — khaled

Exactly as one experiences it. No need to deny it simply because of a materialist mythology.

This is taken from another thread because I think it's more topical here.

the different narratives cannot always be reconciled. But sometimes they can. Einstein famously said that "it would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of air pressure.” I think he was too dismissive of air pressure graphs, which come handy to reproduce Beethoven's work on vinyl and digital formats... — Olivier5

:up: :lol: — Janus

So there is this huge, seemingly inreconcilable difference between the experience of hearing a Beethoven symphony and that of seeing an air pressure graph of the same symphony. Two seemingly inreconcilable narratives of the same event. And yet, the funny thing is, it wasn't actually meaningless to interpret music as variations of air pressure. This was in fact the key to recording it and reproducing it mechanically (through vinyl etc.) and thus making music widely available to the people. Our rapport to music will never be the same. 200 years ago, most people would listen to music maybe a few times a year.

Did music become irrelevant once we discovered its physical underpinning? No, it became more relevant. More present. A big industry actually...

Will the human spirit become irrelevant if one day it manages to understand its own neurological basis? Allow me to doubt. On the contrary, they will make a even bigger industry out of it...

The other side must show how a feeling can move an arm. — khaled

That seems doable.

Will the human spirit become irrelevant if one day it manages to understand its own neurological basis? Allow me to doubt. On the contrary, they will make a even bigger industry out of it... — Olivier5

Interesting fact about air pressure facilitating music recording. :cool:

Re the above though: I don't see how a causal explanation of human agency (demonstrating that it is not free from the determinations of the causal nexus) is possible because if what we think of as human agency were determined by anything other than an unconditioned aspect of the self then it would not really be human agency, and the explanation would not be an explanation, but an elimination. In any case how could we ever know that such a purported explanation of the sense of human agency was the true explanation?

I don't see how a causal explanation of human agency (demonstrating that it is not free from the determinations of the causal nexus) is possible because if what we think of as human agency were determined by anything other than an unconditioned aspect of the self then it would not really be human agency, and the explanation would not be an explanation, but an elimination. — Janus

Not necessarily. The causal explanation could include the causality of the mental over the neuronal. The relationship between the mind and the body is a two way street, as always. If we discover how the brain creates this 'virtual mental space' that the mind seems to be, we might also discover that the deliberations and decisions made within that mental space are needed, indispensable for the organism, not optional. Not frivolous, not an epiphenomenon, but something useful: the capacity for an animal to consider multiple variables at once, what they mean for the animal's survival chances, and on this basis decide whether to fight or to flee, whether to mate or not with that other animal, where to go to drink, where to go to feed. A piloting system.

In any case how could we ever know that such a purported explanation of the sense of human agency was the true explanation?

Because we could then replicate it, like we replicate Beethoven's fifth. We could make machines that have agency.

Well how come a mind can move an arm but can’t move anything outside of the body? So there is some limit here. How does that work? I know Olivier isn’t a dualist so he’s fine but what about you? Would you be willing to put minds and rocks as the same kind of stuff?

There are constraints as to what the human mind can do and has learned to do. However, birds can fly. All of life is evolving along different paths.

Inanimate objects have lost the ability to evolve, except in the smallest manner, e.g. radioactive decay.

brain creates this 'virtual mental space' that the mind seems to be, we might also discover that the deliberations and decisions made within that mental space are needed, indispensable for the organism, not optional. Not frivolous, not an epiphenomenon, but something useful — Olivier5

Sailing awfully close to dualist lines here.

I know there are, I asked what those constraints are. And whether or not you think “minds” are physical.

Minds are exactly as we experience them, as a continuity. It's exactly as we discover them. There is no boundary.

The Gaia is an interesting idea to explore since the human mind/body is a microcosmic view of the whole.

Cool but I wasn’t asking whether or not the mind is “continuous”. Not sure if this is addressed to me.

You were.

You mean, continuous as in it is the same kind of stuff as rocks? I thought you meant it in the sense that we have an integrated “seamless” experience.

It is seamless as quantum comprises everything.

There is no boundary.

Ok. Do you happen to be a panpsychist by chance?

Knowledge shouldn't have labels. It is as we experience it. Words can never fully describe the experience. In many ways the Dao De Jing suggests this: That which we discuss as the Dao is not the Dao. It's not mysterious, just a warning about the incompleteness of language and numbers.

Well said. I think the whole determinism indeterminism debate is a red herring. That’s not actually what people care about when they think of freedom and agency. I don’t think you need the possibility of doing otherwise to be free or morally responsible. All you need is uncertainty of the future, and lack of external impositions. — khaled

I wouldn't even require uncertainty. For example, theism generally ascribes omnipotence and omniscience to the deity, yet no one claims that they are not free. I know that this example comes out of left field for me, but the point is, that we don't seem to have problem with certainty either.

Not necessarily. The causal explanation could include the causality of the mental over the neuronal. — Olivier5

Yes, but even then, how could we know whether the mind was "causa sui" or itself caused by some other antecedent processes?

Because we could then replicate it, like we replicate Beethoven's fifth. We could make machines that have agency. — Olivier5

Intuitively, I have little confidence that is possible, or will ever be possible...but I don't have an argument to support that intuition, as strong as it is!

I wouldn't even require uncertainty. For example, theism generally ascribes omnipotence and omniscience to the deity, yet no one claims that they are not free. — simeonz

That's because the intelligent answer to that conundrum (from long ago, that is from Augustine) is that God exists in eternity, and so it's not a matter of God knowing what you do before you do it, which would suggest predetermination. God knows all of the past, present and future, so for God there is no before and after.

brain creates this 'virtual mental space' that the mind seems to be, we might also discover that the deliberations and decisions made within that mental space are needed, indispensable for the organism, not optional. Not frivolous, not an epiphenomenon, but something useful
— Olivier5

Sailing awfully close to dualist lines here. — khaled

The duality of matter and form, perhaps, but not that of two different substances.

It ought to be obvious to all, that minds exist for a reason, because life doesn't build things for no reason. It ought to be obvious that everything in this universe is connected to the rest, and therefore that epiphenomena are not logically possible (on top of being not noticeable so nobody would know if they existed).

Unfortunately, some people cannot see these obvious things, like some people cannot see red.

When I try to explain these things to you, I feel like I am trying to explain red to a blind man.

Yes, but even then, how could we know whether the mind was "causa sui" or itself caused by some other antecedent processes? — Janus

It would make no sense for the brain to generate such a virtual mental space, if that space was not the locus for some vitally important mechanisms.

Sorry, I saw your reply just yesterday evening.

The person is the subject of all the possible true descriptions and explanations of her or him. — Janus

This is difficult for me to process. I realize that you like to be general and broaden the scope, but this makes the discussion a little unconstrained. I am not asking if you are dualist, as if to expose your conviction and mock it, but it is pertinent to the discourse. The next question would be, how does this dualism manifest. Does it cause irregular patterns, such as distribution biases in QM.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that while quantum indeterminacy is necessary if there is to be freedom, In the sense that it allows that we always could have done otherwise, our moral choices cannot be determined (rather than merely enabled) by that indeterminism, but must be determined by the purposeful self or consciousness in order to themselves count as free and determining, as opposed to merely random, choices. — Janus

Unless you are a dualist and you suggest that QM affords the manifestation of will through probability distribution changes from the norm, you appear to suggest that our freedom stems from the conventional possible fluctuations in the chemical processes in our brain due to QM uncertainty. That is, a neurotransmitter binds to a neuroreceptor a microsecond earlier or later and that jags our thought process enough to give it physical autonomy from the externally compelling forces of the world. To me, this is the same as having a coin tossed inside your brain. Yes, we could claim that it is your own private coin, but I think that the killer thought experiment is still pertinent.

That's because the intelligent answer to that conundrum (from long ago, that is from Augustine) is that God exists in eternity, and so it's not a matter of God knowing what you do before you do it, which would suggest predetermination. God knows all of the past, present and future, so for God there is no before and after. — Janus

I meant that the deity is considered free (even if trivially), without it itself having uncertainty. If the deity can be free and certain, why shouldn't people be credited with freedom in the same way. In fact, if someone is a theist, they should consider the freedom of the deity granted to them as part of being. If the deity is free, then the creation is on the whole a choice, then everything in it is the manifestation of a choice, and carries this choice in their embodiment. In any case, you propose that determinism is a matter of perspective, which appears to me to equate non-determinism and lack of knowledge.

because life doesn't build things for no reason. — Olivier5

If there is a cost to building them. But the whole point of epiphenomena is that they’re costless. And not impactful.

not logically possible — Olivier5

At best you mean evolutionarily. And even then you’re wrong.

(on top of being not noticeable so nobody would know if they existed). — Olivier5

Where’d you get that epiphenomena aren’t noticeable?