31 of 36
31
A pragmatic discussion about free will
Posted: 24 October 2013 11:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 451 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

Kkwan wrote:


Full Definition of FREE WILL

1:  voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>

2:  freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

is clear, understandable, necessary and sufficient, without the complexities of compatibilist free will.

If that is libertarian free will, it is accessible and pragmatic.  smile


And wrong!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2013 11:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 452 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2006-12-20

grin

[ Edited: 24 October 2013 11:37 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2013 12:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 453 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1905
Joined  2007-10-28
Lois - 24 October 2013 11:13 PM

And wrong!

So, these are your two words (together with part of my post 441).

How so? (Two words) LOL

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2013 12:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 454 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1905
Joined  2007-10-28
StephenLawrence - 24 October 2013 11:34 PM

grin

Brevity without explanation? LOL

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2013 05:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 455 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4520
Joined  2007-08-31
Lois - 24 October 2013 11:13 PM

Kkwan wrote:

kkwan - 24 October 2013 09:16 AM

Full Definition of FREE WILL

1:  voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>

2:  freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

is clear, understandable, necessary and sufficient, without the complexities of compatibilist free will.

If that is libertarian free will, it is accessible and pragmatic.  smile

And wrong!

Well the first description, in the sense of <I don’t do this because somebody other’s will> is fully ok, and in fact the compatibilistic one. Just the second description makes it fully inunderstandable, wrong, logically and scientifically untenable, and as such absolutely useless… <smiley of kkwan’s choice here>.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2013 06:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 456 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4520
Joined  2007-08-31

Stephen,

I never heard of the two stage description of free will before, but if I follow your discussion with kkwan correctly he is right in that putting the ‘random’ element at the beginning of the universe takes out the point for which the two stage model is meant: to explain how somebody under exactly the same circumstances ‘could have done otherwise’ (sorry have to go for a moment and rinse my mouth…).

If there is a ‘randomiser’ that generates alternative possibilities for actions, then even if the prior circumstances are the same, the randomiser could create other possibilities. However, for this a true randomiser is needed, whose output is at least partially independent of prior circumstances. Until now we don’t know if such randomisers exist, except in quantum processes. Now one could postulate such a quantum randomiser, but there is no empirical evidence that we have such a randomiser build in in our brains.

But practically it is nearly impossible to distinguish a true randomiser from a good pseudo-randomiser. Pseudo-randomisers can be based on chaotic processes, but still be completely dependent on deterministic laws of nature. So in practice we would not recognise the difference between a person with a real randomiser and another one with a pseudo-randomiser. So this second person can be fully determined, and we would not notice the difference.

Also, this concept makes our actions partially dependent on a random process. Now it can be that our actions are partially random (“What is your favourite colour?” “Blue…no red!”), but obviously this would be a disturbance of the possibility of free will (“I really wanted to take vanilla ice cream, but without reason I took chocolate, I really don’t know why”), instead of a condition for its existence.

And of course compatibilism does not say that the universe is determined. It says that determinism and free will are compatible, i.e. go hand in hand. The more our actions are random, i.e. not determined, the less free we can be. Happily enough macro-systems like the brain, have enough processes with a deterministic character that we can have free will. “Adequate determinism” is enough. kkwan’s statements that we do not live in a deterministic universe and therefore compatibilism is not true just beats thin air.

[ Edited: 25 October 2013 07:13 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2013 07:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 457 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
kkwan - 25 October 2013 12:36 AM
Lois - 24 October 2013 11:13 PM

And wrong!

So, these are your two words (together with part of my post 441).

How so? (Two words) LOL

That was all that was necessary, though I can think of one word I could have used. wink


I admit, however, that you were giving a definition of free will and not necessarily saying you accept free will as true.

Lois

[ Edited: 25 October 2013 07:37 AM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2013 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 458 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1905
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 25 October 2013 05:31 AM

Well the first description, in the sense of <I don’t do this because somebody other’s will> is fully ok, and in fact the compatibilistic one.

It is an expression of plain vanilla free will, not the “compatibilistic one” (whatever it means).

Just the second description makes it fully inunderstandable, wrong, logically and scientifically untenable, and as such absolutely useless… <smiley of kkwan’s choice here>.

What is so “ununderstandable, wrong, logically and scientifically untenable…....” of

freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

?????  cheese

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2013 08:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 459 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1905
Joined  2007-10-28
Lois - 25 October 2013 07:32 AM

That was all that was necessary, though I can think of one word I could have used. wink

I admit, however, that you were giving a definition of free will and not necessarily saying you accept free will as true.

Nyet (one word).

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2013 08:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 460 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1905
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 25 October 2013 06:12 AM

And of course compatibilism does not say that the universe is determined. It says that determinism and free will are compatible, i.e. go hand in hand. The more our actions are random, i.e. not determined, the less free we can be. Happily enough macro-systems like the brain, have enough processes with a deterministic character that we can have free will. “Adequate determinism” is enough. kkwan’s statements that we do not live in a deterministic universe and therefore compatibilism is not true just beats thin air.

It is implicit that determinism rules, in compatibilism, otherwise what is copatibilism compatible to?
Obviously, not indeterminism.

I did not state “that we do not live in a deterministic universe and therefore compatibilism is not true”.

What I wrote in post 441 was:

OTOH, from http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/adequate_determinism.html

Adequate determinism gives compatibilists the kind of free will that they need and that they say they want.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2013 09:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 461 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1905
Joined  2007-10-28
StephenLawrence - 24 October 2013 10:41 PM

Also that B *depends* upon A.

Without a dependent connection there is no free will in any case

Not necessarily so. B could depend on A, C or A, D or A, C and D.

Simply no it isn’t.

Then what is compatibilism compatible to? Indeterminism?

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2013 09:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 462 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1905
Joined  2007-10-28
StephenLawrence - 24 October 2013 10:45 PM

There are alternative possibilities in my two stage model. The indeterminism is placed at the beginning of time.

Placing indeterminism “at the beginning of time” (whatever it means) is arbitrary to make your two stage model “work”, but in reality, indeterminism was, is and will be, in the universe whereas strict determinism does not exist at any level, in the universe.

With adequate determinism, your model will work well enough as a one stage and not a two stage model as it is superfluous to invoke indeterminism “at the beginning of time”.

Also we know adequate determinism has nothing to do with alternative possibilites. Simply toss a coin a few times to work that out.

Adequate determinism enables alternative possibilities because there is no absolute certainty, with adequate determinism.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2013 09:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 463 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1905
Joined  2007-10-28
StephenLawrence - 24 October 2013 10:54 PM

The fact is what you believe is nothing our of your control would have to be different for you to make a different choice.

What do you mean by that?

That is why you think we need to be free from a causal chain to have free will. Otherwise determinism is no problem for free will.

Causal chains are highly problematic beyond a few steps and as such, it makes no sense to rely on them to have free will, as determinism does.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2013 11:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 464 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2006-12-20
kkwan - 25 October 2013 09:56 AM
StephenLawrence - 24 October 2013 10:54 PM

The fact is what you believe is nothing our of your control would have to be different for you to make a different choice.

What do you mean by that?

 

You weighed up the options and on valuing making tea most highly you made tea.

You could have chosen to make coffee and would have done if you had weighed the options up differently.

In order to have weighed up the options differently something out of your control would have had to be different.

That is what you deny. Denial of that is belief in Libertarian free will.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2013 11:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 465 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 25 October 2013 06:12 AM

Stephen,

I never heard of the two stage description of free will before, but if I follow your discussion with kkwan correctly he is right in that putting the ‘random’ element at the beginning of the universe takes out the point for which the two stage model is meant: to explain how somebody under exactly the same circumstances .

The idea isn’t that the person could have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances.

The idea is they could have done otherwise depending upon their beliefs and desires and that their beliefs and desires could have been different depending upon how the indeterminism went in the first stage of the two stage model.

Since the first stage is out of our control it doesn’t need to be near to the time the choice is made.

Profile
 
 
   
31 of 36
31