Rainbow Dash Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 I watched some of Stef's videos on free will, and he spends most his time arguing why it exists instead of giving it a clear and specific definition. Can someone help define free will for me? I am having trouble understanding what people mean by free will. *Edit* *Important* I am no longer allowed to post, I can only communicate through edits. I have been given no explanation as to why I can't post. Apparently FDR is a strong supporter of censorship.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Stef's definition is the ability to compare what's in our minds to an ideal standard. For example we have an ideal standard of truth and so can choose between truth and falsehood. Everything else in the universe is driven forward by physics, impulse and instinct.
dsayers Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Stef's definition is the ability to compare what's in our minds to an ideal standard. For example we have an ideal standard of truth and so can choose between truth and falsehood. When I read the first sentence, I was inclined to say that that's the definition of reason. But I feel the second sentence supports the first. In light of this, would we then say that the definition of reason is the ability to determine the ideal standard itself and conceptualize consequences outside of ourselves and our survival?
Rainbow Dash Posted March 8, 2014 Author Posted March 8, 2014 Stef's definition is the ability to compare what's in our minds to an ideal standard. For example we have an ideal standard of truth and so can choose between truth and falsehood. Everything else in the universe is driven forward by physics, impulse and instinct. What do you mean by "choose"? If I flip a coin and it lands on heads, did the coin choose to land on heads? How can I determine if an object's actions were determined by choice? When you say everything else in the universe is driven by physics, impulse and instinct, are you implying that choosing between truth and falsehood is not driven by physics, impulse and instinct?
june Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Stef's definition is the ability to compare what's in our minds to an ideal standard. but are our thoughts and "ideal standards" not limited by our knowledge? for example this definition would then imply that a newborn baby has no free will because it can not "compare" ideas, in fact it doesn't really have ideas or "ideals" to begin with because it's knowledge intake is severely limited.
TheRobin Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 but are our thoughts and "ideal standards" not limited by our knowledge? for example this definition would then imply that a newborn baby has no free will because it can not "compare" ideas, in fact it doesn't really have ideas or "ideals" to begin with because it's knowledge intake is severely limited. I'd say: yes it is. Choice (and free will) requires knowledge. For instance, if the only cure you have is leeches, there's no real choice in how to go on helping people that are sick. Once you have more knowledge (and more tools) available you'll have more choice in how to respond to a certain illness.I'd also assume a baby doesn't have much if any choice (pr free will)at all. (In the same way I don't think mentally handicapped people have much if any choice at all). (But I don't have a baby and I don't know much about the development of babies and infants either, so I might be completely wrong here)
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 When I read the first sentence, I was inclined to say that that's the definition of reason. But I feel the second sentence supports the first. In light of this, would we then say that the definition of reason is the ability to determine the ideal standard itself and conceptualize consequences outside of ourselves and our survival? I don't see any obvious problems with that definition. I'd have to mull it over more. What do you mean by "choose"? If I flip a coin and it lands on heads, did the coin choose to land on heads? How can I determine if an object's actions were determined by choice? When you say everything else in the universe is driven by physics, impulse and instinct, are you implying that choosing between truth and falsehood is not driven by physics, impulse and instinct? Non-conscious objects are not relevant. Although impulse, instinct and physics may be involved, choice is not driven solely by them. Objects are just mindlessly pushed along by physics. Animals are driven solely by impulse and instinct (there may be some animals with some kind of proto-free-will. I don't know but we can leave those possibilities aside). Humans are also driven by these things but have a capacity for free-will that nothing else has. but are our thoughts and "ideal standards" not limited by our knowledge? for example this definition would then imply that a newborn baby has no free will because it can not "compare" ideas, in fact it doesn't really have ideas or "ideals" to begin with because it's knowledge intake is severely limited. Yes, a newborn's brain doesn't develop that capacity for a while. Toddlers begin to shows signs of it. That's why peaceful parenting is so important. The child is not just pushed along by external forces beyond her control but begins to exercise their free-will early on.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 8, 2014 Author Posted March 8, 2014 Is it possible for free will to be deterministic? Why or why not?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Is it possible for free will to be deterministic? Why or why not? Not by any definition of deterministic I've ever heard. Most people do not define what kind of determinism they're talking about so i just assume they mean causal determinism because that's what most people mean.
Kevin Beal Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 That experience in your conscious subjective experience of responding to things causally, the way you experience it causally, is actually what is truly happening. (I chose to lift my arm, and the damn thing goes up). Determinism necessarily requires this causal description to be illusory, and that the subjective experience is determined by lower level processes. And "determined" in this sense means giving a full account: that none of the subjective experience is itself causal. Rather it is fluff on top a well oiled machine, just some blips resulting from the "computer program" of the mind. Superfluous fluff, and yet an extremely expensive phenotype that is not only unnecessary under a determinist view, but antithetical since it's "illusory". That's because me choosing to lift my arm is not a determined causal description. Me working through a math problem is not the same process a calculator performs. The mistake is to think that "causal" means "determined", which it doesn't. My anger can cause me to get away from an abusive person, and an abusive person can cause me to get angry, but that's not the same thing as "this input runs this series of programs and results in that output". Those two causal descriptions are entirely different. And the latter is just empirically untrue. Consider the following example: We drive on a bumpy road looking out ahead. Despite the bumps jolting my body up and down, my visual experience is smooth. What we tend to think if we are determinists or materialists, is that a calculation is made per bump resulting in the value of a correction to be signaled to our eye muscles for re-adjustment. This is not what happens. We have a vestibulo-ocular reflex that originates in our ears sensing balance, the way we'd sense touch and it reflexively affects certain systems in our body, including the eyes. It is a complicated teeter totter. One side up, the other side down. What determinists and materialists like to do when this is pointed out is to say that a teeter totter is a computer, making everything a computer and thus completely destroying any chance of having the argument by analogy using computers, which now offer zero explanation regarding brains, consciousness and free will. If everything is a computer, then it becomes a meaningless explanation. The mistake always is a misunderstanding of what is meant by "causal". Free will is absolutely causal, just not determined. The distinction being like us doing a math problem and a calculator doing it. It's an entirely different phenomenon. The calculator may simulate what we are doing, but simulations are not the things themselves.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 8, 2014 Author Posted March 8, 2014 Hypothetically, if physical reality causes me to choose to lift my arm and choosing to lift my arm causes my arm to go up, would this be an example of free will or determinism?
Kevin Beal Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Hypothetically, if physical reality causes me to choose to lift my arm and choosing to lift my arm causes my arm to go up, would this be an example of free will or determinism? both positions accept the reality of the physical world, but as formulated here, it makes no sense. Reality causes nothing. Reality is a concept used to describe the entirety of existing entities. It's not a thing to act or be acted upon, but a necessary requirement for causation to occur in the first place. It's analogous to saying that the concept "things" caused my arm to go up. When it is either a self generating conscious causal description or one that is described wholly in terms of synaptic firings, motor neurons, muscle contractions, etc. The conscious description requires neuronal activity, obviously, but cannot be fully accounted for in those terms, anymore than the phenomenon of liquidity can be fully accounted for with a description of molecular structure. It's necessary, but not sufficient.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 8, 2014 Author Posted March 8, 2014 a self generating conscious causal description Can you explain what this means?
Kevin Beal Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Can you explain what this means? Sure! When you are deciding which path you want to take on your walk through the park, do you experience it as being forced upon you? Compare that with a time when you are consumed by a mood and feel a distinct lack of control. In the way that this distinction is meaningful is the way that I mean "self generating cause". Under a determinist position, the distinction I illustrated above would be meaningless. They would have to conclude that both are equally as determined and inescapable, despite our experience of it being under our control. Free will is merely an acceptance that our subjective experience is actually real. Sometimes there are exceptions, and sometimes some unconscious behavior looks conscious, and hypnotism has an affect on us, and all of this. So it's not as if every single thing we experience is the way we perceive it, but some of it kinda has to be, and I'm submitting that our conscious decision making falls under that category. And as long as determinists accept this (via performative contradiction) then I will too. It's kinda ridiculous to ask me not to.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 8, 2014 Author Posted March 8, 2014 When you are deciding which path you want to take on your walk through the park, do you experience it as being forced upon you? Forced upon me by what? And when you say "you" are you referring to the atoms that make up my body, or are you referring to the consciousness I am experiencing?
Kevin Beal Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Forced upon me by what? And when you say "you" are you referring to the atoms that make up my body, or are you referring to the consciousness I am experiencing? I'm referring to the same "you" that you are in acknowledging that I was addressing you, and that this is my argument and not yours. The you that has your body and your conscious experiences, with your history and goals etc. The you that is necessary to be having this conversation right now. The you reading my posts, gathering their meaning and coming to (dis)agreement. It's not one or the other. And if I'm pushed off a cliff, I'm forced, right? If someone asks me what kind of salad I would like to lunch, that's not forced, right? The way that this distinction is meaningful is the way that I mean "forced". I would be open to hosting a skype call about this topic if people are interested. It can be hard to get complicated ideas like these across thru text, and there is more up to interpretation on a forum than in conversation.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 8, 2014 Author Posted March 8, 2014 By not being forced, do you mean I am forcing myself to make the decision, or that nothing is forcing me to make my choices and my choices are determined by randomness? If I chose to make a decision, I first must choose to make the decision to make the decision, and before that I must choose to make the decision to choose to make the decision to make the decision. this leads to an infinite regression. (hypothetical example)If you are angry and I ask you "why are you angry?" and you say "because you called me ugly". then I ask "why does me calling you ugly make you mad?" and you say "because being insulted makes me mad" and then I ask "why does being insulted make you mad?", eventually I will get to a question you don't know the answer to. If you do things for reasons you don't know why, how can that be considered having control over your actions?
Kevin Beal Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 By not being forced, do you mean I am forcing myself to make the decision, or that nothing is forcing me to make my choices and my choices are determined by randomness? Neither one. This is a false dilemma. This is because "nothing forcing" ≠ randomness. There is nothing determining my choice of path through the park, but neither is it random which one I pick. I chose it. When I choose things, I don't go "eeny meeny miney mo, pick a tiger by it's toe" to come to my ultimate decision, and even if I did, I would still be choosing a random, which is still another option. If I chose to make a decision, I first must choose to make the decision to make the decision, and before that I must choose to make the decision to choose to make the decision to make the decision. this leads to an infinite regression. Two things: 1. There is absolutely nothing about making a decision that requires you to choose to make that decision, or that if there were, that it must lead to an infinite regression. You are going to have to demonstrate this point. 2. Determinism doesn't escape this supposed problem simply because what is being "regressed" isn't a choice. If it's a problem for one, it's a problem for both. (hypothetical example)If you are angry and I ask you "why are you angry?" and you say "because you called me ugly". then I ask "why does me calling you ugly make you mad?" and you say "because being insulted makes me mad" and then I ask "why does being insulted make you mad?", eventually I will get to a question you don't know the answer to. If you do things for reasons you don't know why, how can that be considered having control over your actions? But I don't choose to get angry. So, not the best example. Also, this is a specious argument. This is saying that because we don't know some lower level of explanation, we can't understand a higher one. That is until we understand everything about quantum theory, we can't understand newtonian physics. And then when it's discovered that something even smaller or more basic than quantum theory exists, then all of that goes out the window. But the fact that we know that quantum physics is a thing is precisely because we do understand physics. Further, we can apply this same reasoning to the argument itself: how do you know that there is any more basic question? We can start there and it will be quickly apparent that you don't know why, and they you will have to concede for the sake of consistency that your argument is boloney.
dsayers Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 And when you say "you" are you referring to the atoms that make up my body, or are you referring to the consciousness I am experiencing? Consciousness cannot exist without matter or energy. So while you are your consciousness, this cannot exist without the atoms that make up your brain and everything connected to it that keeps it alive.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 8, 2014 Author Posted March 8, 2014 Further, we can apply this same reasoning to the argument itself: how do you know that there is any more basic question? We can start there and it will be quickly apparent that you don't know why, and they you will have to concede for the sake of consistency that your argument is boloney. You can't make the same argument for determinism, because with determinism every instance of the universe is determined by the previous instance of the universe, up until the first instance of the universe. This does not go on forever, only up unto the beginning of the universe. Even if we don't fully understand the algorithm that determines the next instance of the universe that doesn't mean it can't exist. Consciousness cannot exist without matter or energy. So while you are your consciousness, this cannot exist without the atoms that make up your brain and everything connected to it that keeps it alive. If my consciousness is dependent on matter or energy, then if my consciousness causes my choices, doesn't that mean that matter and energy makes my choices?
Kevin Beal Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 So, I have been putting a lot of time and energy and thought into this discussion and the topic in general, and it's not enjoyable or worthwhile to me to talk about it when the person I'm talking about it with doesn't acknowledge any errors that they've made, or accepted any of the explanations I offer. What that does is irritate me and if I don't watch it, I get passive aggressive and snarky and I begin to participate in the subversion of the truth of the topic. And I've already addressed your question at the end more than once, and I don't want to keep going in circles. So, I'd just simply ask you if my posts have been helpful in better understanding the position or not. That was the goal in posting about this, was it not? Have I succeeded in explaining what the free will position is or haven't I?
Rainbow Dash Posted March 8, 2014 Author Posted March 8, 2014 So, I have been putting a lot of time and energy and thought into this discussion and the topic in general, and it's not enjoyable or worthwhile to me to talk about it when the person I'm talking about it with doesn't acknowledge any errors that they've made, or accepted any of the explanations I offer. What that does is irritate me and if I don't watch it, I get passive aggressive and snarky and I begin to participate in the subversion of the truth of the topic. And I've already addressed your question at the end more than once, and I don't want to keep going in circles. So, I'd just simply ask you if my posts have been helpful in better understanding the position or not. That was the goal in posting about this, was it not? Have I succeeded in explaining what the free will position is or haven't I? I still don't fully understand is what you mean by "making choices", but by now it seems that the concept just doesn't make sense to me and we may have to agree to disagree. I appreciate the time you spent and I am sorry you were irritated.
dsayers Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 If my consciousness is dependent on matter or energy, then if my consciousness causes my choices, doesn't that mean that matter and energy makes my choices? What do you think? I've noticed there's not much input here, just a series of questions as if a position could be refuted by somebody not being able to acceptably explain it. The scenario you're describing suggests that dependence upon something means reducible to it. I reject this supposition as you have not made the connection. Therefore I ask of you: What is consciousness? we may have to agree to disagree. Ongoing analysis of suggesting to agree to disagree.
Josh -Lel- Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 So, I'd just simply ask you if my posts have been helpful in better understanding the position or not. That was the goal in posting about this, was it not? Have I succeeded in explaining what the free will position is or haven't I? I really didn't quite understand your explanation, not to be annoying or anything. That's probably just my general impairment in the learning center though. Perhaps it would be better, as you mentioned, if we had some sort of real-time skype conversation about it? My skype is hackshacks2 if anyone wants to add me to talk about this.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 What do you think? I've noticed there's not much input here, just a series of questions as if a position could be refuted by somebody not being able to acceptably explain it. The scenario you're describing suggests that dependence upon something means reducible to it. I reject this supposition as you have not made the connection. Therefore I ask of you: What is consciousness? Ongoing analysis of suggesting to agree to disagree. Consciousness is what I am experiencing. Everything I see smell feel think and so on. So are you claiming that multiple conscious experiences are possible with identical matter/energy combinations? I really didn't quite understand your explanation, not to be annoying or anything. That's probably just my general impairment in the learning center though. Perhaps it would be better, as you mentioned, if we had some sort of real-time skype conversation about it? My skype is hackshacks2 if anyone wants to add me to talk about this. Which side of the free will debate are you on?
Josh -Lel- Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Which side of the free will debate are you on? I strongly want to learn towards believing free will is true, but my conflict is that I can't find or understand any explanation of how free will would be logically possible. And on the other hand, a universally deterministic universe seems logically consistent and possible, but is a very emptying and depression thought for me. I didn't quite understand the responses/arguments for free will in this thread, so maybe there will be more clarity in a real-time discussion, if we have one.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 I strongly want to learn towards believing free will is true, but my conflict is that I can't find or understand any explanation of how free will would be logically possible. And on the other hand, a universally deterministic universe seems logically consistent and possible, but is a very emptying and depression thought for me. I didn't quite understand the responses/arguments for free will in this thread, so maybe there will be more clarity in a real-time discussion, if we have one. Sure, I would like to take part in that if someone on the opposing view would join. Or we could Skype and I could try to explain why I don't think determinism is depressing. My Skype is: wobbuffet222
dsayers Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Consciousness is what I am experiencing. Everything I see smell feel think and so on. So are you claiming that multiple conscious experiences are possible with identical matter/energy combinations? The only claim I made in that post is that dependence upon something does not equate to being reducible to it. I can't find or understand any explanation of how free will would be logically possible How do you know that a logical explanation is required? Can we explain how life is an emergent property of matter and energy? There's large debates on how humans came to be. Even if we are unable to explain it, we still exist.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 The only claim I made in that post is that dependence upon something does not equate to being reducible to it. How do you know that a logical explanation is required? Can we explain how life is an emergent property of matter and energy? There's large debates on how humans came to be. Even if we are unable to explain it, we still exist. For consciousness to not be reducible to matter and energy, there has to be something additional that affects it. if something additional affects consciousness, then then depending on what that something else is would depend on what the consciousness was which would mean multiple consciousnesses would be possible for the same matter/energy combinations.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Hypothetically, if physical reality causes me to choose to lift my arm and choosing to lift my arm causes my arm to go up, would this be an example of free will or determinism? I'm not sure what you mean by "reality causes...". You are part of reality so it's like saying, "if reality causes reality..." . Many people including myself cannot even define cause in any way that isn't uselessly broad. As determinism is often just someone's way of saying "cause and effect" (their superficial perception of how things happen in time) , "determinism is also uselessly broad. I assume you mean you arm lifting in some involuntary way; say to prevent a ball that's flying at you.
Josh -Lel- Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 How do you know that a logical explanation is required? Can we explain how life is an emergent property of matter and energy? There's large debates on how humans came to be. Even if we are unable to explain it, we still exist. There is empirical evidence (sensory confirmation) and logical consistency to the existence of the matter that makes up our bodies and living organisms. There isn't any empirical evidence for free will (besides "feeling" it in the abstract sense) or logical consistency (defying the universe's causal nature) to the idea that we make our own choices. I'd rather have confirmation of free will through some definitive proof rather than be left what seems like the deterministic reality of the universe and us, since the nature of it and the implications are quite emptying, demeaning and saddening in my opinion. Although I'd also like to hear Rainbow's view on determinism and why he might feel differently about that.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 I strongly want to learn towards believing free will is true, but my conflict is that I can't find or understand any explanation of how free will would be logically possible. And on the other hand, a universally deterministic universe seems logically consistent and possible, but is a very emptying and depression thought for me. I didn't quite understand the responses/arguments for free will in this thread, so maybe there will be more clarity in a real-time discussion, if we have one. It's probably because you have a notion of free will that is logically impossible. Remember that a round earth would have seemed logically impossible to ancient humans. To them it would be a kind of physical law that things fall down so anything on the bottom or sides of the earth would fall of. In a few centuries people might be having discussions about how 21st century humans, especially atheists, often believed that their volition was an illusion and they were fundamentally no different to rocks.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 I think we may be arguing over semantics. If I am wearing a glove on my hand and I use my gloved hand to lift a cup, is my hand lifting the cup or is the glove lifting the cup? How I see it, matter and energy are the hand, consciousness is the glove, and our actions are lifting the cup. Does this metaphor help explain my viewpoint?
Kevin Beal Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 I would love to see a determinist explain what the free will position actually is to the satisfaction of a free will proponent. Because if we're talking about two different things, then debate is meaningless, right?
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 I would love to see a determinist explain what the free will position actually is to the satisfaction of a free will proponent. Because if we're talking about two different things, then debate is meaningless, right? I tried really hard to understand the free will point of view. Do you have any other ideas on how to get the idea across?
Recommended Posts