Sure.  I’ll buy that explication.

Occam

Works for me.

Occam - 01 August 2007 06:37 PM

Sure.  I’ll buy that explication.

Occam

Not knowing what we are going to do, makes it possible, as far as we are concerned, that we could do any number of things and this is liberating. I think this is what the poster is saying roughly?

But this ignorance couldn’t give us free will because free will is by definition what makes us responsible for our actions.

Obviously ignorance of what we are going to do couldn’t do that! 

When somebody is being sentenced to death or life imprisonment, to say they deserve it because when they committed the act, they had a type of free will which comes from ignorance would be absurd and actually Occam I’m sure you wouldn’t argue that.

But what I can’t understand is why you are agreeing that this is free will?               

Stephen

[quote author=“StephenLawrence” date=“1186446602]When somebody is being sentenced to death or life imprisonment, to say they deserve it because when they committed the act, they had a type of free will which comes from ignorance would be absurd and actually Occam I’m sure you wouldn’t argue that.

But what I can’t understand is why you are agreeing that this is free will?

I didn’t.  My view is clearly stated, and the poster merely expanded on them.  Because he said, essentially, that because of ignorance we can call it free will, doesn’t mean I agree that there’s actual free will.

Occam

Hi. I glad I came back (my mac is on the ‘vet’! I’m writing this in free time at work).

I’ve been reading the posts, and I came to the conclusion that we still haven’t agreed on what “free will” means. It seems that each one “world’s view” entails different meanings for the concept: I’d like to know what “free will” means for you guys.

After reading all the posts, I find I myself am not sure of what it means…

Paulo Pinheiro

Paulo Pinheiro - 10 September 2007 11:41 PM

Hi. I glad I came back (my mac is on the ‘vet’! I’m writing this in free time at work).

I’ve been reading the posts, and I came to the conclusion that we still haven’t agreed on what “free will” means. It seems that each one “world’s view” entails different meanings for the concept: I’d like to know what “free will” means for you guys.

After reading all the posts, I find I myself am not sure of what it means…

Paulo Pinheiro

Hi Paulo,

My definition has been changing over time, as I’ve tried to settle on something that accurately describes it, recently I’ve been posting a definition but at the risk of boring others I’ll post it here too.

When somebody blames somebody for the fact they behaved as they did, they are expressing a belief in free will.

They are expressing the belief that the person could have done otherwise in the circumstances at the time.

But this isn’t all because a good question would be, so what?

Well, somehow people believe that if you could do other than you do, at the moment you are doing what you are doing, this would give you a freedom which would make you ultimately responsible for the choice you made.

So my definition is in two parts:

1. We could do otherwise (in the circumstances at the time)

2.  That 1. makes us ultimately responsible for our actions.

Stephen

I would label my own notion of free will as the feeling or perception that we can choose among alternative actions, and that this choice may be constrained by internal and external factors, but it is not strictly and irrevocably determined in advance. Now, I’m not actually convinced this exists, but I still think the feeling that it does is naturallly and deeply a part of how our cognitive apparatus works and unlikely to go away except in fairly abstract intellectual contexts. Stephan and I, as you probably have figured out, disagree about this.

mckenzievmd - 11 September 2007 12:03 PM

I would label my own notion of free will as the feeling or perception that we can choose among alternative actions

I see the alternative actions as the product of the movement of the quarks and leptons, but I fail to see what represents the “we” (what is that made of) doing the choosing. What is it? What is it that steps in between the quarks and says: “Hey, guys, let’s start moving in the other direction.”:question:

I’m not sure I understand your question, George. We all perceive ourselves to be agents with consciousness and the ability to choose and to act. I think to some extent the perception of a self that is unitary in time and space is an illusion (much like free will), but it is how most people claim to experience their lives and I think is a pretty widespread, natural illusion. So in that sense, there is no “we” doing the choosing, but it sure feels like there is, which is why I think the hwhole problem (and these endless debates) arises. Our intuitive perception of how we are and how we relate to the uuniverse turns out to be challenged by intellectual abstrations from science, and we’re stuck with a conflict between how we think things are and how they feel.

What I think george is talking about is the thing I described in the argument of “Narwhol’s Diner” in the free will or not discussion.  The thing that considers itself to be me, is made of these quarks and leptons, and it’s choices are determined by the physics of these quarks and leptons, therefore they as a whole share the same quality of “me”-ness whereas this thing (me) that considers itself to be me, is the mental product (mind, thoughts, what have you) that result from those processes.

Feel free to contradict me on this one, george.  But don’t actually “be” free to choose whether or not to do so.

mckenzievmd - 11 September 2007 02:37 PM

I’m not sure I understand your question, George. We all perceive ourselves to be agents with consciousness and the ability to choose and to act. I think to some extent the perception of a self that is unitary in time and space is an illusion (much like free will), but it is how most people claim to experience their lives and I think is a pretty widespread, natural illusion. So in that sense, there is no “we” doing the choosing, but it sure feels like there is, which is why I think the hwhole problem (and these endless debates) arises. Our intuitive perception of how we are and how we relate to the uuniverse turns out to be challenged by intellectual abstrations from science, and we’re stuck with a conflict between how we think things are and how they feel.

This is written so carefully, Brennen, that I have no idea what it is you actually believe. And I felt the same sense of confusion when I was trying to understand Doug’s (or Dennett’s, of Hobbes’) position on free will. I don’t understand the idea behind compatibilism, and I never will.

I can’t try to contradict you, Narwhol. What you’re saying sounds logical to me.

i might be saying it george, but what exactly am the I that’s saying it?

narwhol - 11 September 2007 03:07 PM

i might be saying it george, but what exactly am the I that’s saying it?

Specific order of quarks and leptons?

BTW, Narwhol, what is it that is vibrating in the the String Theory?