FREE WILL FROM THE GROUND UP

Humanism
181
Citizenschallenge, Well I guess my last explanation fared no better. Here's another go, a bit of a wacky analogy it might work.
Sorry I'm Holy Unimpressed. In fact, if anything, I'm a bit irritated. Between everyone ignoring
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/17445/ Antonio Damasio: The quest to understand consciousness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY
as though what he's describing were some meaningless "externality". And Lois' grand beginning to this thread:
For all those interested in free will, I suggest you post your own definitions of libertarian free will and compatibilist free will or any other kind of free will you bring into a discussion, You all use certain terms but it isn't clear how you each define them. Without clear definitions we can all agree on, we will never get through to each other and we wind up talking at cross purposes. Please, if you agree to give your definitions, make them concise and write them your own words, as you understand them and use them. Don't just copy an Internet or dictionary definition. Also define causal reasoning as you use it. Then maybe we can get a discussion of free will on the right path. Thanks. Lois
but then Lois folding up and disappearing and wholly ignoring GdB, who certainly has a better grasp of these concepts then me, {when someone with real interest is looking in} # 121 http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/202094/ ~ ~ ~ I've listened to too many people trying to blow too much smoke, to go for anything that rings a flat as what I've seen in these pages. Like I said before, as far as I can go is... Determinism isn’t forced on me any more, or less, than water is forced on a fish. And you're simple examples have nothing to do with the complexity of the real world or our navigating through it :blank: I didn't fold up and disappear. i got tired of talking about libertarian free will, which I completely reject. But it seems to come up in every discussion. It turns me off every time I see it mentioned and it makes me lose all desire to participate. Lois
182
I didn't fold up and disappear. i got tired of talking about libertarian free will, which I completely reject. But it seems to come up in every discussion. It turns me off every time I see it mentioned and it makes me lose all desire to participate. Lois
Then why the hell start this thread?
183

CC
I treat the subject of LFW as a simple subject because it is.
What the implication of determinism is, is that for us to have done other than we did, circumstances which had nothing to do with us whatsoever would have had to have been different, just like for cards or anything else.
There is an obvious sense in which if that is the case we are merely fortunate or unfortunate depending upon what those circumstance were.
So I have explained it. If you get that come back to me and we can move forward.
If not it will remain true that you judge yourself and others as if they have LFW, so you do believe in it whether you look and see or not. You don’t like me telling you what you believe but it’s true and I don’t mind jolting you into thinking about it, you probably will.
You’ve spent most of the time not looking, ignoring, not answering questions and rejecting arguments with no good reason at all.
And my hunch is it’s because really you don’t want to know the truth, People sadly imagine they want LFW.
When you start looking into the science of how the brain works, that has nothing to do with LFW, it does have something to do with CFW but that should be dealt with seperately.
Lastly you’re confused about GdB’s contribution, he disbelieves in LFW, does think belief in it has negative consequences and was talking about CFW.

184
I didn't fold up and disappear. i got tired of talking about libertarian free will, which I completely reject. But it seems to come up in every discussion. It turns me off every time I see it mentioned and it makes me lose all desire to participate. Lois
Then why the hell start this thread? Because I thought it might spark an intelligent discussion. I was wrong. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/yet-another-experiment-eroding-free-will/ Lois
185
Because I thought it might spark an intelligent discussion. I was wrong.
Yes, of course. When you do not react on argumentations, or react on them with sneers instead on the content, the discussion cannot become intelligent. Again and again you do not react on more or less precise arguments. Slowly it becomes clear that you avoid them because you have no answers. If you think you have, then please give them. Here] is a long precise posting of mine (and C.pm also asked you to react on it), you just had a sneer here] and no sign of you understanding what I wrote. Keep in mind 'understanding' does not mean 'agreeing': if you do not agree then show me why what I wrote is wrong.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/yet-another-experiment-eroding-free-will/
Sam Harris has no idea what he is talking about. He is a compatibilist in disguise. In his pamphlet 'Free Will' he clearly shows that his basis for ethics is exactly the basis that compatibilists have for it. The experiment Harris describes is a blow for those people that believe that consciousness is driving immediate decisions without a causal history: so especially dualists and people that think that we have contracausal, or libertarian free will. But these are no compatibilists. So what would a compatibilist reaction on this experiment be? The problem with such experiments is that there is no reason for the action. If the subjects subtract or add the numbers is of no importance whatever. It is exactly the same with the original Libet experiment. A lot of my decisions are arbitrary and/or automatically. In this experiment it is arbitrary. When I drive my car and brake when suddenly a child runs across the road, I might already be braking before I am fully conscious what happens, it was automatically. In any sport for which reaction time is important I react more or less automatically. I only recognise my action as my own in a rational reconstruction afterwards. But, and that is the important thing: I acted according my will. That means they were free actions. Being able to act freely means having free will. Compare this with 'long term' decisions. Real case: I am not content with the work of a new colleague of mine. So I think I should address this to him next Monday. However, it takes some courage (I was involved in his appointment, but I am not his boss, who is away for 5 weeks), I have to decide how to do it (just casually, or do it in a meeting room), which points I will bring in, how I will formulate them, and how I formulate our department's expectations. Is consciousness not involved in all these deliberations? When will the fMRI predict what I will do? 4 Seconds in advance? Do I really care? Does that show it was not my decision? Will I act according to my own insights, according my own feelings, wishes and fears? Yes, they are all determined, and an incredible advanced technology might even be able to predict what I will do days in advance. But consciousness, being a function of the brain, was involved, and I will do what I did from my own will. There is no 'superseding from determining factors' needed to have free will. Now here is an article for you: 'http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/is-neuroscience-the-death-of-free-will/' (Copy/paste the address. I had to do it in this way because it otherwise is seen as spam by the forum software.) As I took some time to formulate this posting I seriously hope you will react on the contents. And don't forget my postings I linked above, in which I also invested some time. If you do not react, or have only sneers, or just say there is no 'superseding from determining factors', then I know you have not even started to begin a rational ('intelligent') discussion. PS A big part this posting is a reaction on your linked article. It would be not more than fair if you argue why the article I linked is wrong.
186
As to the relevance to the topic of "free will from the ground up", I think that it is relevant because we could not have a sense of free will, and we could not even have CFW, without consciousness and a sense of self.
All we need for CFW is beliefs and desires and for those to motivate actions, so we don't need consciousness for that. Wrong. If one is never conscious, one can have no sense of self. One cannot develop nor recognize beliefs. One is not able to review their desires or their own actions. There is nothing free about that.
187

If “The Walking Dead” was reality, and a zombie was deemed to still be a human, it could not be convicted as guilty, in a court of law, for attacking living humans, even though it’s actions were in accordance with its one overwhelming desire (to consume live human flesh), because, presumably, it has no capacity for doing anything other than trying to consume live human flesh.

188
Determinism is the idea that our decisions are determined by factors we are unaware of--genes, environment and experience--which we have no conscious control over, that we can't consciously override those factors--even if we are sure we can, and that "free will" as an overriding force doesn't exist. We all like to think it does exist and we act as f fit does but it has been proven over and over again that it does not, that it cannot. Lois
Guess I have a tough time with the "determined" part. "Strongly Influenced" I can buy - "determined" simply does not compute. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ How does chance factor into this "determinism" ? How does choice factor into this "determinism" ? Change factors in when there are changes to our environment. We have no control over that either, nor what aspects of our environment are going to affect us. A lot of it will turn out to be neutral. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mind you I find "free will" as in you can do anything you want, rather naive also - but I certainly believe that we have a degree of free that can be exercised - Do you have an objective evidence that's true? heck your mood on a certain day can make a huge difference in how you react to life changing opportunities. Our moods are determined by our environment (experiences) and our genes, too. You can't get away from it. ______________________________________________ It reminds me of all the spilt ink on Nature VS. Nurture - becoming ideological battles more than observational reports Oh course, with advances in recent decades, it's become fairly clear that it's a question of Nature VIA Nurture, where the two are inextricably intertwined. ps. Here's a wonderful book discussing the issue. The 2003 - Nature via Nurture by Matt Ridley (of course it's got it's flaws, as a better educated reviewer pointed out - still it add some realistic detail that's been missing from that argument. Would be fun to see a revised version of the book reflecting on the past decades discoveries… ah, but I digress yet again. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/apr/19/highereducation.scienceandnature) Believe me--it's nature. What we experience is part of our determining influences, but we have no control over that either. We don't control what part of our experience is going to take hold--including nurture. Lois
189

Believe me, some people are so caught up in reiterating the point that our universe is deterministic, (and thus there is no such thing as LFW), that they will not accept a definition of free will (CFW) that might imply, to some people, that LFW exists. Unfortunately, IMO, this extremist stance implies that our perception of self, our beliefs and desires, our conscious abilities, our personal history of learning, etc., are superfluous to our experience of life.
Here is my Complete Idiots Guide to Understanding “free will”:
LFW - no.
CFW - yes.
Everything we do and experience is determined. - yes
Everything we do and experience is meaningless. - no

190
Believe me--it's nature. What we experience is part of our determining influences, but we have mo control over that either. We don't control what part of our experience is going to take hold--including nurture. Lois
Why should I believe you? You are dismissive, without rational explanations… You use empty insults too much… to distract from your lack of rational explanations And your argument boils down to believe me, I know more than you. Oh and the fact that you hide from those who do understand these issues and can discuss them fluently, doesn't help your case any. I say this because I read that article that GdB linked to above
Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will? By EDDY NAHMIAS date published NOVEMBER 13, 2011 http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/is-neuroscience-the-death-of-free-will/?_r=0
Reading that article was a wonderful journey of discovery, since what that guy's saying resonates like a bell, and has done much to help me clarify, and justify, my uneasy about those simplistic and absolutist deterministic arguments I'm hear from L & L.
191
Believe me--it's nature. What we experience is part of our determining influences, but we have mo control over that either. We don't control what part of our experience is going to take hold--including nurture. Lois
Why should I believe you? Because it's an obvious fact. Lois dismisses CFW without any good reason and you are quite right to question that. But she is dead right about the sense in which we have no control and it's child's play to see. So why don't you get it? Well it's because you won't listen. So again, and please try listening. LfW control, or influence, since you don't like the word control, is an all or nothing thing, either you have influence over absolutely everything or it's sheer luck what you get to do. That's Lois' point (stick to your guns Lois) Why? Well again that is obvious because if you would have needed your distant past to have been different to have made different choices, then if it would have been better for you to have made a different choice you are obviously 100% unlucky that the distant past wasn't different, since it was something you could not influence. Can you really not understand that???
192

“The Basic Argument”
https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility - Galen Strawson.pdf
This might help with what LFW is and why we can’t possibly have it.
Edit: Link doesn’t work if you just google ‘The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility Galen Strawson’ it will come up.

193

If someone’s answer, to why anything happens, is always: “Because our universe is deterministic.”, this has only one advantage over the answer "Because “God willed it”. The one advantage of the 1st of these statements is that there is evidence to deduce that it is most likely true. Other than that, both are rather useless answers. Both have the disadvantage (if taken as an ultimate, end all answer) of potentially shutting down functional exploration of what the deterministic factors are, and how they are operating.
e.g.:
Question: “Why does the wind blow?” answer: “Because of the deterministic factors.” (A correct but rather un-useful response.)
alternatively:
Question: “Why does the wind blow?” answer: “Because of the uneven heating of the Earth’s surface.” (A largely correct and much more informative response.)

So what do you think about that? Lois?

194
Believe me--it's nature. What we experience is part of our determining influences, but we have mo control over that either. We don't control what part of our experience is going to take hold--including nurture. Lois
Why should I believe you? Because it's an obvious fact. Lois dismisses CFW without any good reason and you are quite right to question that. Anyone who makes the claim that we have CFW or LFW has the burden of proof and must show evidence that either is true. I am under no obligation to prove those concepts wrong. It's no different than a claim that god exists. If you can't prove your claim, the default is that it does not exist. When you have objective evidence of free will in any form, let me know and we can discuss it. I don't wish to waste my time arguing over unsupported, specious claims about free will or god. But she is dead right about the sense in which we have no control and it's child's play to see. So why don't you get it? Well it's because you won't listen. So again, and please try listening. LfW control, or influence, since you don't like the word control, is an all or nothing thing, either you have influence over absolutely everything or it's sheer luck what you get to do. That's Lois' point (stick to your guns Lois) Why? Well again that is obvious because if you would have needed your distant past to have been different to have made different choices, then if it would have been better for you to have made a different choice you are obviously 100% unlucky that the distant past wasn't different, since it was something you could not influence. Can you really not understand that??? Thanks for your support, but you contradict yourself by turning around and claiming CFW as if you never agreed with me. Lois
195

We humans, of sound mind, can engage in actions that are either consistent, or not, with our desires and/or beliefs, if we are not compelled by an outside agent to do otherwise.
(That is essentially what CFW is, by definition.)
It is compatible with the apparent fact that our actions are determined. IOW, nothing in the statement requires belief that our actions are anything other than determined by the natural processes of our universe.
So Lois, which part of this statement: “We humans, of sound mind, can, engage in actions that are either consistent, or not, with our desires and/or beliefs, if we are not compelled by an outside agent to do otherwise.” do you require evidence for?

196
Thanks for your support, but you contradict yourself by turning around and claiming CFW as if you never agreed with me. Lois
I agree with you on LFW. And support is important, your are immersed in a culture in which almost everybody is deluded about it unfortunately. On CFW you think our actions are influenced by our beliefs and desires, I know you do, that's why you are anti religion. So why you think A) We don't have CFW whilst also thinking B) our actions are influenced by our beliefs and desires, I don't know.
197
Thanks for your support, but you contradict yourself by turning around and claiming CFW as if you never agreed with me. Lois
I agree with you on LFW. And support is important, your are immersed in a culture in which almost everybody is deluded about it unfortunately. On CFW you think our actions are influenced by our beliefs and desires, I know you do, that's why you are anti religion. So why you think A) We don't have CFW whilst also thinking B) our actions are influenced by our beliefs and desires, I don't know. My position is that we MAY be influenced by our beliefs and desires but we can't tell which beliefs and desires might become determining factors. Everything we experience goes into the big pot of determining influences and we can't consciously separate them out. We have no control over which beliefs and desires will be determining influences and which will not. Not everything we believe or desire becomes a determining influence. Sometimes they are superseded by other factors. Lois
198
My position is that we MAY be influenced by our beliefs and desires but we can't tell which beliefs and desires might become determining factors. Everything we experience goes into the big pot of determining influences and we can't consciously separate them out. We have no control over which beliefs and desires will be determining influences and which will not. Not everything we believe or desire becomes a determining influence. Sometimes they are superseded by other factors. Lois
So you think it's true that some beliefs and desires do become determining factors. So if I define CFW as something we have when any beliefs and desires we have become determining factors, then we (edit: Sometimes) have CFW by that definitiion. Can we agree on that?
199
Anyone who makes the claim that we have CFW or LFW has the burden of proof and must show evidence that either is true. I am under no obligation to prove those concepts wrong. It's no different than a claim that god exists. If you can't prove your claim, the default is that it does not exist. When you have objective evidence of free will in any form, let me know and we can discuss it. I don't wish to waste my time arguing over unsupported, specious claims about free will or god.
Well I took the burden of proof for CFW already a dozen times. But you do not react. Here are postings you never reacted upon (in this thread; in others there are many more): #23] (a sneer is no answer) #30] #33] In #57] I give an explanation on what CFW is to C.pm, but you do not even seem to notice. #63] This one was also not directed to you, but it illustrates quite cleary what CFW is (not): #65] #121] #184] So saying people have the burden of proof, and then look away when they do, is an absolute intellectual dishonest way of discussing. So now the burden of proof is on you: show me the errors in above postings. But beware: saying we have no CFW because we have no LFW makes no sense at all. But that is all what you have been doing until now. You say we have no free will because we 'have no control on our determining factors'. But that is exactly saying that we we have no CFW because we have no LFW. (Besides my point that even your definition is wrong, because we, as a composite of millions of servo systems have influence on our determining factors.)
200
My position is that we MAY be influenced by our beliefs and desires but we can't tell which beliefs and desires might become determining factors. Everything we experience goes into the big pot of determining influences and we can't consciously separate them out. We have no control over which beliefs and desires will be determining influences and which will not. Not everything we believe or desire becomes a determining influence. Sometimes they are superseded by other factors. Lois
Exercising CFW, according to its definition, as I understand it, does not require that we predict which beliefs and/or desires impact our subsequent actions. Exercising CFW does not rely on a claim that our actions are determined exclusively by our beliefs and/or desires. It does not claim or require that we be able to ferret out all of the various and sundry factors that determined our actions. It does not require that we have control over which beliefs and/or desires will be determining influences in our actions. Exercising CFW, according to its definition, as I understand it, does require that one can become aware of one's beliefs and/or desires, and that one can, act in a way that is consistent with their beliefs and/or desires. (If the action is consistent with the person's beliefs and/or desires, and was not compelled by an outside agent, then that person exercised CFW.) So it appears to me that most of your position is based on erroneous assumptions.