An opinion that a painting is beautiful is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. To choose the opinion that the painting is ugly, would be equally logically valid. To be forced to say the painting is beautiful, provides an invalid opinion. — Syamsu

Not necessarily invalid, merely arbitrary.

If what I’m talking about is not the state then I’m happy to consider another term for what I’m talking about. Because I don’t see the individual as being up against governance only, as if everything the individual comes into conflict with springs from authority — Brett

Yes, I thought you were talking about some kind of social collective basically, and were using the term "state" loosely.

I notice you mention Weber. Have you read any Mead? Because one of the books I'm reading right now seems to go to the heart of this topic. It's called "Mind, Self, and Society" and it is quickly becoming one of my favourites.

The world universe does not need us to be here. Why would anyone think that anything we do would make the place better. — Sir2u

As I said, the human race is as much a part of the universe as anything else, so your premise, or rather, your objection to my premise, is flawed.

don’t see any difference except in size. And size may very well be the problem. But it’s a fact that can’t be ignored. I think states do — Brett

I think there is a significant difference between an organic community (family/clan/tribe) and one that is institutionalized (polity)

State does not equate to community — I like sushi

This is true. The state is an institution which appeared relatively late in the collective project.

Is it possible that this psychological response to the edict of hard-determinism is an argument against that hypothesis?

Being able to stay calm in situations that most people do not, doesn't mean anything other than they can stay calm in situations where most people do not. I can do the same thing. Humans and other animals have emotional reactions to specific stimuli in varying degrees. Some humans freak out over tiny things, like leaving their house (agoraphobia) and others don't react emotionally much at all (sociopaths). — Malice

Actually, there is a strong biological foundation for "delayed reaction" being fundamental to the development of more sophisticated responses (and response mechanisms). The earliest manifestations of neurogenesis (that is, in the evolutionary development of nerve, and ultimately cortical, cells) are associated with the phenomenon of hysteresis (delay in signal transmission). In fact, this occurs in the simplest organisms, where the membrane functions to delay the immediate responses to chemical changes in the environment.

So, perhaps the phylogenetic basis of "reflection"?

The world is getting along just fine, actually much better without us humans right now so I think that is sort of a nonsensical idea. — Sir2u

Why would you eliminate humanity from the equation? That was never part of the discussion. The human species is as much a part of the world (universe) as everything else, and so deserves the benefit of melioration. Unless you are an anti-meliorist.

OK, but isn't that just saying what we already know and why there is a problem? Brains are material things that engage in complex processes, so this statement boils down to saying that consciousness is the same as complex system properties. Is anyone convinced by that? Isn't this just claiming that Chalmers' easy problems explain the hard problem? — Graeme M

No, it is quite another thing. As said, you would need to be sufficiently versed in the vocabulary and concepts of Systems Philosophy to be able to grasp what is being presented. Laszlo very specifically addresses it, in the introduction I think. It is a compelling description.

any choice is either conservative or progressive — Syamsu

I would agree that there is some kind of a "gradient" applicable to the choices of free-will. It seems that you might be operating in a framework of meliorism, which is definitely my own orientation.

:up: Thanks!

Or choosing Coke instead of Pepsi? Like that?

Which is why I posted. I don't understand "making present an alternative possible future"? It is all so abstract, I cannot relate to it.

Free-will equals the power to choose?

Sounds ok to me.

So what is the proper definition of "free-will" which you are suggesting?

Does this not give you the impression that like a rock - always complying, never resisting nature's laws - our minds too are under the sway of logic, a law in its own right, and thereafter to "follow where reason leads" is to immediately realize that the only reasonable position is to face reality with "stoic calm"? — TheMadFool

Agreed. Stoicism has this sense of dispassion. But I think not all stoicism really implies this. There was some discussion of this around the M. Pigliucci topics.

gather from some of the articles I have read this means that any material object has a mind, of sorts at least. — Graeme M

It helps if you can learn to adjust your concept of mind. Systems Philosophy takes the phenomena of complex adaptive systems as fundamental. So what we think of as mental processes in this light are seen in more general terms as features of complex systems, feedback, control, increasing complexity and self-organization, etc. When you familiarize yourself with the theory and the vocabulary, then you can begin to see how material things can participate in what we call consciousness, to the extent that they likewise instantiate these properties or tendencies.

I recommend Laszlo's Introduction to Systems Philosophy, which touches on the issue. Von Bertalanffy also.

I provide IT support in the medical community. Typically, having computer problems and dealing with your tech guy is pretty stressful. These folks have so many times asked me how I manage to stay so constantly calm and tranquil. I figure, when a psychiatric counselor asks you your secret of serenity, you are moving in the right direction.

I don't feel I have suppressed anything, just reached a healthy state of mind. I am deeply passionate about many issues, which only motivates me to work even harder.

It is important to have the correct understanding of free will. — Syamsu

I find that different people are motivated by different objectives which can result in differing perspectives on the same thing, or differing uses of the same thing.

That being the case, I believe it makes rather more sense to focus on areas of core agreement than to quibble about peripheral areas which may not be actual disagreements, but simply areas in which our objectives do not overlap.

@Syamsu Could you provide a positive statement of your conception of the role or significance of free will (rather than a refutation of what to me is an illusory problem)?

How do you explain the "stoic calm", an allegedly possible state, even in the eye of a storm, in the midst of causally potent chaos? There are expressions in ordinary language like "he didn't bat an eyelid", "she was unfazed by his disparaging remarks", etc. that bespeak of such mind states that are practically isolated from the causal web. — TheMadFool

I have cultivated this state of mind for ages, with much success. Near the end of my undergrad, in the late eighties, I was reading in a Greek diner near Bloor and Spadina when the waitress dropped a whole tray full of glasses. I did not even blink, but in my peripheral vision it was quite easy to see every other head in the place whip around simultaneously. To me, it is a desideratum.

↪Pantagruel I’m not talking about free will vs determinism, but about incompatibilism vs compatibilism. The free will vs determinism argument only applies to incompatibilists, which Syamsu definitely is, and you seem also to be. Compatibilists think that's a false dichotomy.

Also, I think everyone in this thread agrees that free will exists. Syamsu just wants to talk about what it's like. — Pfhorrest

Yes, I know Syamsu believes in free will, I would never post to argue it. I don't think he realized I also endorse it, which is why I wondered if he were not a native english speaker.

As far as both free-will and determinism being true, Systems Theory nicely sorts that out, without much fuss. I suppose it is compatiblist, in that sense.

I believe, with Descartes, that free will is an essential component of thought, so the idea of eliminating free will, for me, is the same as eliminating thought.

you don't want to understand how it works — Syamsu

What's to understand? I will...I do. It's not rocket science. It's an empirical fact.

↪Pantagruel Again with your bizarre attitude. Just like with EVERYTHING else, the logic of how it works must be explained. And the dictionary definitions are corrupt for catering to free will deniers. Or dictionary definitions are talkative, and not really strictly logical.

The logic of free will does not function, when agency is asserted to be a factual issue. That is why it is essential for comprehension of free will to know that what the agency is, is a matter of chosen opinion. — Syamsu

Sorry. Maybe english is not your first language?

@Pfhorrest I agree with Popper that the burden of proof rests with the determinists. Personally, I think anyone who seriously wants to deny free-will is just funny. I guess some people were just pre-destined to be comedians.... :)

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.