There is no such thing as free will. It doesn't matter what other words you come up with. Our thoughts and actions are determined. What you call volition is also determined.One other matter about this: you do not allow me to use the word 'free will', because it only means what you think it means. I cannot use another word for what I mean, because some dictionaries describe it as free will. (Is it a miracle? Both words are used in similar contexts!). So, how would you describe the difference between a a voluntary action and a coerced action? Do differ both actions in terms of responsibility?
Ehh? Do you agree now or are you just being ironical?I see two ways out of the current mess concerning discussions of free will. 1) compatibilism and incompatibilism are both wrong because they assume there is only one correct way to define free will. 2) Just reserve the term free will for "the free will illusion" and use the term own volition for CFW.
That's it. No CDHO necessaryHere you take things too far. We are interested in how a person could have done what they should have done, otherwise everybody in court is morally responsible. CHDO is a central issue for CFW too. I am taking it as far as I presented it to peacegirl: the question if dish 7 was a real option, and if she is a psychologically healthy person, and was not coerced at the moment of her action of choosing dish 5. This has nothing to do with it. You are making a distinction that appears qualitatively different, when it is only a matter of degree. It is obvious that if someone had OCD, it would almost seem forgivable under the banner of determinism because it is more difficult for him to make a choice free of his compulsion. I will guarantee you that if someone said to the OCD person "if you check that doorknob one more time your parents will be murdered", they would stop what they were doing instantly. This example shows that their actions can be changed IF the antecedent conditions are compelling enough. This just means there is no qualitative difference which would justify letting this type of individual off the hook, and judge a person who did not have this condition as free. This is a phony definition of what constitutes freedom.
That's it. No CDHO necessaryHere you take things too far. We are interested in how a person could have done what they should have done, otherwise everybody in court is morally responsible. CHDO is a central issue for CFW too. I am taking it as far as I presented it to peacegirl: the question if dish 7 was a real option, and if she is a psychologically healthy person, and was not coerced at the moment of her action of choosing dish 5. Ok well there is a flaw. Free will is also the ability to select a different option. Could have if she'd chosen to is not enough for even compatibilist free will. That's just choice by definition. Exactly. If it wasn't for you and Lois, I wouldn't stay. I start to think to myself, "what is so hard to get"? This knowledge of determinism isn't even the discovery; it is just one side of the two-sided equation. It would probably take me another couple of years to get to Chapter Two, and I don't have that kind of time. :long:
The point is selecting the best option is a necessary condition of choice.I think of choice merely as structure or topology. A given location and point in time has a different landscape of choices. It has little to do with selecting a best option and is background for the problem of agency. It's easy to follow a topology of choices. The best path is another story. That would be a sub-structure of the overall structure. But again, mathematically there exists structures that have more than one optimal solution. In the case of multiple optimal paths, for an agent to move forward a path must be chosen. Any number of methods could be used in that case all of them arbitrary since they all have the same outcome. These sorts of problems are encountered in AI. Which has set for itself, among other goals, the creation of an automaton that is indistinguishable from a human in one or more ways. It implicitly assumes that humans are a kind of automaton.
naturalist.atheist and BreakUp, I think it a bit distasteful to follow peacegirl through several fora. If your only reason for posting here is to thwart her, I would suggest you let it be. The proofstone of her (father's) ideas is a rational discussion, not the condemnation of a mob. The more independent similar criticisms she gets, the better. She should at least be convinced that there is no conspiracy against her ideas, but that the criticism comes from honest rational considerations.Good luck with that. At some point you will determine that you are dealing with mental pathology.
It would probably take me another couple of years to get to Chapter Two, and I don't have that kind of time. :long:Yep, still making the same mistakes after 13 years of trying the same thing. A bit of advice, if you want Peacegirl to move on, everyone needs to claim 100% agreement with whatever she posts, and convince her that you actually do believe. Tin foil hats and a Moped would help.
And ultimately one could always choose based on the outcome of a random event. And if it is random, then the outcome is not predicable, no matter how many things may influence you personally. J. von Neumann postulated this sort of thing to give his automatons "free will".No idea what 'non-predictability' has to do with free will. Maybe you can explain. I've always considered the term "free will" to be an oxymoron. It's popular use (usually in a religious context) implies that one or more individual agents may freely choose any given path through a topology of choices as opposed to a path predetermined by some external agent (god). It usually is interpreted as having the ability to deliberately choose a non-optimal path vs an optimal path. Not necessarily just the ability to choose among optimal paths. In any case, if one wanted to create an experiment to demonstrate "free will" the most basic experiment would be to choose a path that is free of anyone's will, including your own. You can't get any more free than that. And it would be accomplished by using a mechanism of choice that is non-predictable to all, including in time.
Janis has finally fallen into a group that is just as dogmatic and stubborn as she is about free will, the claim being that it does not exist, and yet there is no proof and no way to prove it, just assertions that it is so. Believe or you don’t understand, there is no middle ground or anything but black and white for Janis and several members here.
The proof of no free will or the proof of determinism would consist of the 100% ability to predict the outcome of every choice presented. So first you need to find some way to predict the future, and then test it by presenting situations where a choice is involved. Any failure to predict accurately would open the possibility that there is some degree of free will and determinism is not 100%, as has been claimed.
And ultimately one could always choose based on the outcome of a random event. And if it is random, then the outcome is not predicable, no matter how many things may influence you personally. J. von Neumann postulated this sort of thing to give his automatons "free will".No idea what 'non-predictability' has to do with free will. Maybe you can explain. I've always considered the term "free will" to be an oxymoron. It's popular use (usually in a religious context) implies that one or more individual agents may freely choose any given path through a topology of choices as opposed to a path predetermined by some external agent (god). It usually is interpreted as having the ability to deliberately choose a non-optimal path vs an optimal path. Not necessarily just the ability to choose among optimal paths. In any case, if one wanted to create an experiment to demonstrate "free will" the most basic experiment would be to choose a path that is free of anyone's will, including your own. You can't get any more free than that. And it would be accomplished by using a mechanism of choice that is non-predictable to all, including in time. I would suggest that flipping a coin or rolling a die, depending on how many options there were, would demonstrate the randomness of choosing. Of course you would need to eliminate choices that are detrimental or dangerous and only select from "good" choices, I wouldn't want to see someone getting hurt or injured. In the restaurant example that would require knowledge of any allergies and knowledge of the content of the meal.
15 pages and over 200 posts debating a topic where there is no proof or solid evidence, only opinion. The thread would be more productive and interesting if it were to focus on a topic that had some element of physical reality that can be verified.
And ultimately one could always choose based on the outcome of a random event. And if it is random, then the outcome is not predicable, no matter how many things may influence you personally. J. von Neumann postulated this sort of thing to give his automatons "free will".No idea what 'non-predictability' has to do with free will. Maybe you can explain. I've always considered the term "free will" to be an oxymoron. It's popular use (usually in a religious context) implies that one or more individual agents may freely choose any given path through a topology of choices as opposed to a path predetermined by some external agent (god). It usually is interpreted as having the ability to deliberately choose a non-optimal path vs an optimal path. Not necessarily just the ability to choose among optimal paths. In any case, if one wanted to create an experiment to demonstrate "free will" the most basic experiment would be to choose a path that is free of anyone's will, including your own. You can't get any more free than that. And it would be accomplished by using a mechanism of choice that is non-predictable to all, including in time. I would suggest that flipping a coin or rolling a die, depending on how many options there were, would demonstrate the randomness of choosing. Of course you would need to eliminate choices that are detrimental or dangerous and only select from "good" choices, I wouldn't want to see someone getting hurt or injured. In the restaurant example that would require knowledge of any allergies and knowledge of the content of the meal. If choices are made only by a random process then they could be carried out by a machine. Which for experimental purposes could make a choice that leads to its destruction.
The proof of no free will or the proof of determinism would consist of the 100% ability to predict the outcome of every choice presented. So first you need to find some way to predict the future, and then test it by presenting situations where a choice is involved. Any failure to predict accurately would open the possibility that there is some degree of free will and determinism is not 100%, as has been claimed.Given that statement of the problem, you will only achieve 100% determinism only if you use perfect agents. Given that humans are well known to suffer from all sorts of imperfections in their sight, hearing, touch, smell, degrees of motion and overall reliability, any ensemble of humans operated over their lifetime will not achieve 100% determinism.
The proof of no free will or the proof of determinism would consist of the 100% ability to predict the outcome of every choice presented. So first you need to find some way to predict the future, and then test it by presenting situations where a choice is involved. Any failure to predict accurately would open the possibility that there is some degree of free will and determinism is not 100%, as has been claimed.Given that statement of the problem, you will only achieve 100% determinism only if you use perfect agents. Given that humans are well known to suffer from all sorts of imperfections in their sight, hearing, touch, smell, degrees of motion and overall reliability, any ensemble of humans operated over their lifetime will not achieve 100% determinism. So accordingly there can't 100% determinism, the occurrence of free will and determinism is somewhere along the spectrum from 100% free will to 100% determinism. There is a strong possibility that this is not a fixed point but varies with time and circumstances.
So accordingly there can't 100% determinism, the occurrence of free will and determinism is somewhere along the spectrum from 100% free will to 100% determinism. There is a strong possibility that this is not a fixed point but varies with time and circumstances.Probably not. The problem of creating a reliable machine from unreliable components is a well know problem in the computer hardware industry. Given that, the industry has achieved some astounding results. The notable weak point is the software, which is created by unreliable humans.
The proof of no free will or the proof of determinism would consist of the 100% ability to predict the outcome of every choice presented. So first you need to find some way to predict the future, and then test it by presenting situations where a choice is involved. Any failure to predict accurately would open the possibility that there is some degree of free will and determinism is not 100%, as has been claimed.That is not the only way to prove determinism true. You're all washed up thedoc. Predicting outcomes has nothing to do with proof. The proof is in the fact that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction and that once a choice is made in that direction, it could not have been otherwise.
Given that statement of the problem, you will only achieve 100% determinism only if you use perfect agents. Given that humans are well known to suffer from all sorts of imperfections in their sight, hearing, touch, smell, degrees of motion and overall reliability, any ensemble of humans operated over their lifetime will not achieve 100% determinism.
So accordingly there can't 100% determinism, the occurrence of free will and determinism is somewhere along the spectrum from 100% free will to 100% determinism. There is a strong possibility that this is not a fixed point but varies with time and circumstances.Nah, you 2 newbies. I don't know which of the 2 postings I think is more silly: you both seem to think that people are determined, but not totally, and that if it turns out that there is randomness in people's behaviour, we then have free will? In the end, pure randomness is not predictable. And people that would be 100% determined are perfect agents? C'mon, this is just silly talk. I know peacegirl just sticks to her ideas, even if she found nobody who accepts her ideas (sorry peacegirl, accepting determinism and thinking that that excludes the existence of free will is just the first piece of the cake...), but at the moment you both are not doing much better. The only difference is that you are not trying to publish books. But following your favourite cybervictim through cyberland isn't exactly a sign of mental health either...
The proof of no free will or the proof of determinism would consist of the 100% ability to predict the outcome of every choice presented. So first you need to find some way to predict the future, and then test it by presenting situations where a choice is involved. Any failure to predict accurately would open the possibility that there is some degree of free will and determinism is not 100%, as has been claimed.This makes not much sense either, even if it seems so on the surface. The first question is not if we live in a determined world, but if determinism makes free will impossible. That is conceptual question, not an empirical one. As I answer the question negative (i.e. I say that determinism is a necessary condition for free will), the question if the world is 100% determined or just 99% is of no interest at all. And the 1% randomness does not add to the idea of free will: do you think somebody randomly making choices in his life is the best example of somebody expressing his free will, and therefore a shining example of responsibility?
The thread would be more productive and interesting if it were to focus on a topic that had some element of physical reality that can be verified.You think that changing the subject would be a good way to make the thread more productive? OK. Here is my empirical question: does money exist? Does it have 'an element of physical reality that can be verified'? Is it a meaningful question? (If not, my account no is ....)
It usually is interpreted as having the ability to deliberately choose a non-optimal path vs an optimal path. Not necessarily just the ability to choose among optimal paths. In any case, if one wanted to create an experiment to demonstrate "free will" the most basic experiment would be to choose a path that is free of anyone's will, including your own. You can't get any more free than that. And it would be accomplished by using a mechanism of choice that is non-predictable to all, including in time.I am wondering if this means something at all. To see if you really mean something I think you should make a proposal for an experiment (SciFi elements are allowed). But such abstractions as 'an optimal path free from anyone's will' is hardly something to be realised in a laboratory.
15 pages and over 200 posts debating a topic where there is no proof or solid evidence, only opinion. The thread would be more productive and interesting if it were to focus on a topic that had some element of physical reality that can be verified.So by all means why don't you leave? There are many other threads and forums throughout the entire internet. You don't have to be at this one.
So by all means why don't you leave? There are many other threads and forums throughout the entire internet. You don't have to be at this one.We agree on this one. :ahhh: