Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5691
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:18 am
Free-will. What is it? Can humans express it? What are the implications? These are the three main things I'd like to discuss in this thread and pretty much in that order. I'd like to stay away from the theological implications, at least at first. So with that, let's get a working definition of free-will going, one we hopefully can all agree on.
Wiki's definition seems pretty sound so we'll start with that and go from there...
Wiki wrote:
Free will raises the question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, or choices. Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally deterministic.
This seems workable to me without much modification, so I'll open the discussion here. I plan to create a second thread to poll the members of the forum after this thread winds down.
OrdinaryClay Confident Learner
Joined: Feb 09, 2010
Posts: 92
Posted:
Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:40 pm
MockingGods wrote:
Free-will. What is it? Can humans express it? What are the implications? These are the three main things I'd like to discuss in this thread and pretty much in that order. I'd like to stay away from the theological implications, at least at first. So with that, let's get a working definition of free-will going, one we hopefully can all agree on.
Wiki's definition seems pretty sound so we'll start with that and go from there...
Wiki wrote:
Free will raises the question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, or choices. Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally deterministic.
This seems workable to me without much modification, so I'll open the discussion here. I plan to create a second thread to poll the members of the forum after this thread winds down.
If there exists a natural phenomenon called mind emergence from such a collection of matter as a brain then we can not state its characteristics because we don't understand what it is in any real materialist sense. Just because we have mapped brain patterns and localized brain function in no way explains the emergence of mind.
The wiki definition seems to be going down the well trod and in my opinion very uncreative route of - is QM deterministic or not. I mean maybe that is not the direction it's leading, but it sure seems that way. Then based on that answer making a massive leap of extrapolation, which in my view is unwarranted.
OrdinaryClay Confident Learner
Joined: Feb 09, 2010
Posts: 92
Posted:
Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:57 pm
I would prefer the following definition:
OrdinaryClay wrote:
Free Will
is defined as a rational agent exercising the ability to select from a set of choices given a state of existence at some particular time. The set of choices can be finite and still allow for the agent to be of a free will. The state of existence may include material circumstances or other free will choices.
BornAgainAthiest Graduate Thinker
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 669
Location: Here.
Posted:
Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:19 pm
How about dealing with some unfinished business, OC?
Do you still want me to start off that thread about Theistic Evolution and those caveats of yours? If so, you have to say, 'Please.' (Nicely.)
What about those questions re: authorship of the Pastoral Epistles? Remember that I offered to open your eyes about Original Sin depending on the content of your answers to those questions?
I'm still waiting...
Where does historical reportage take over from allegorical storytelling in the Bible? Somewhere in Genesis? Exodus? Still waiting on your response there too...
Oh and that glaring contradiction of yours in the, 'Creation of Satan' thread still stands - unless you want to re-phrase or retract it.
Your move.
BAA.
_________________ Nietzsche was wrong - god never lived.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5691
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:14 pm
OrdinaryClay wrote:
I would prefer the following definition:
OrdinaryClay wrote:
Free Will
is defined as a rational agent exercising the ability to select from a set of choices given a state of existence at some particular time. The set of choices can be finite and still allow for the agent to be of a free will. The state of existence may include material circumstances or other free will choices.
While I do not wish to exclude you from this discussion, it was more intended to be from a natural or material perspective. I will not disagree that rational agents select from certain given choices. Your definition basically asserts free-will without addressing its relationship to the apparent casual nature or our reality. Wiki's definition addresses this by invoking the word "control", which fits with what I'd like to discuss.
Edit: I would say "Will" is defined as a rational agent exercising the ability to select from a set of choices. Your definition does not, in my opinion, sufficiently address the "Free" component of the phrase. What exactly is our will, free from? Is a "state of existence" cause by factors beyond the purview of personal control?
Last edited by MockingGods on Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:07 pm; edited 3 times in total
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5691
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:19 pm
BornAgainAthiest:
I've created this thread specifically so others of a naturalistic perspective can discuss this issue without the chatter, at least initially, of the theistic minded. Your perspective, among other non-theists on this forum, are whom I'm interested in. If I had the ability I'd probably remove OC's posts.
iPondR Graduate Thinker
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
Posts: 534
Location: Aussie Prawn Facility; District 10
Posted:
Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:47 pm
MockingGods wrote:
BornAgainAthiest:
I've created this thread specifically so others of a naturalistic perspective can discuss this issue without the chatter, at least initially, of the theistic minded. Your perspective, among other non-theists on this forum, are whom I'm interested in. If I had the ability I'd probably remove OC's posts.
I'd like to be in on this... something I need to look into! i.e. (im)possibility of contra-causal freewill and culpability... (in)determinism and all that fun stuff... oh, and altruistic robots!
real philosophers with cahones (google it, it's not all wikipedia v's conservapedia ) wrote:
“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millenia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as being aware—or failing that, being culpably unaware—of relevant alternatives to one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship. (See Kane 1996, 81ff. and Clarke 2003, Ch.1.)
and... OK OK I'll stay relevant <sheesh>
_________________ I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, any day... - Douglas Adams
OrdinaryClay Confident Learner
Joined: Feb 09, 2010
Posts: 92
Posted:
Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:33 am
I assume you want me to answer.
MockingGods wrote:
OrdinaryClay wrote:
I would prefer the following definition:
OrdinaryClay wrote:
Free Will
is defined as a rational agent exercising the ability to select from a set of choices given a state of existence at some particular time. The set of choices can be finite and still allow for the agent to be of a free will. The state of existence may include material circumstances or other free will choices.
...
Edit: I would say "Will" is defined as a rational agent exercising the ability to select from a set of choices. Your definition does not, in my opinion, sufficiently address the "Free" component of the phrase. What exactly is our will, free from?
Free from outside coercion.
Quote:
Is a "state of existence" cause by factors beyond the purview of personal control?
Partially. Note I said the state of existence may include other free will choices, meaning the free will agent may make other free will choices which influence future choices. An example, may be choosing to desire something.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5691
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:20 am
iPondR wrote:
I'd like to be in on this... something I need to look into! i.e. (im)possibility of contra-causal freewill and culpability... (in)determinism and all that fun stuff... oh, and altruistic robots!
I want you "in" on this
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5691
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:32 am
The OC wrote:
Free from outside coercion.
This is interesting. The poster GreatestIam said something very similar. So basically our will is free as long as someone isn't holding a gun to our proverbial heads? As I said to him at the time, this subject is far more complex then that.
Quote:
Partially. Note I said the state of existence may include other free will choices, meaning the free will agent may make other free will choices which influence future choices. An example, may be choosing to desire something.
I would argue that our choices (will/volition) are mostly, if not completely, the result of external environmental and internal biological factors beyond our control. Factors that drive human will would also include non-willful stimuli.
Quote:
I assume you want me to answer.
Until I get something better to work with
OrdinaryClay Confident Learner
Joined: Feb 09, 2010
Posts: 92
Posted:
Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:46 am
MockingGods wrote:
Quote:
Partially. Note I said the state of existence may include other free will choices, meaning the free will agent may make other free will choices which influence future choices. An example, may be choosing to desire something.
I would argue that our choices (will/volition) are mostly, if not completely, the result of external environmental and internal biological factors beyond our control. Factors that drive human will would also include non-willful stimuli.
Sounds like you are describing a robot. I don't find it plausible.
BornAgainAthiest Graduate Thinker
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 669
Location: Here.
Posted:
Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:02 pm
Hi MG!
I think that the quote below...
BornAgainAthiest wrote:
How about dealing with some unfinished business, OC?
Do you still want me to start off that thread about Theistic Evolution and those caveats of yours? If so, you have to say, 'Please.' (Nicely.)
What about those questions re: authorship of the Pastoral Epistles? Remember that I offered to open your eyes about Original Sin depending on the content of your answers to those questions?
I'm still waiting...
Where does historical reportage take over from allegorical storytelling in the Bible? Somewhere in Genesis? Exodus? Still waiting on your response there too...
Oh and that glaring contradiction of yours in the, 'Creation of Satan' thread still stands - unless you want to re-phrase or retract it.
Your move.
BAA.
...is what OC means when he uses the phrase, "Free from outside coercion".
Perhaps he feels that asking him to abide by the usual rules of common courtesy and good forum etiquette is too much like coercion on my part? So be it.
I s'pose I shouldn't be surprised though. The folks over at Ex-Christian.Net are having a hard time just getting him to abide by the rules of argumentation in the threads he's started up (but left unfinished, with questions unanswered) there.
Can I take a back seat for now, MG? I
am
interested, but neuroscience, psychology and such like isn't really my thang! Ok?
BAA.
_________________ Nietzsche was wrong - god never lived.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5691
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:03 pm
BornAgainAthiest wrote:
Can I take a back seat for now, MG? I am interested, but neuroscience, psychology and such like isn't really my thang! Ok?
Of course good sir. It should be known however that I created this thread with the expressed intent to garner your opinion (and DigitalAtheist) on the free-will issue. I'll continue with OC for now to flesh out some more of my personal thoughts on this subject and hopefully you (among others especially like invixxtus, who seems to have fine grasp on the subject) will jump into to point out my errors.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5691
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:21 pm
The OC wrote:
Sounds like you are describing a robot. I don't find it plausible.
It's interesting that you should make this analogy. A device humans have created, the computer, might be the best way of looking at this issue. In many ways it's much like a human being so it shouldn't be surprising that we crafted something like this. It basically starts out as a blank slate, with a simple input and output system, just like humans. In the beginning it can make only rudimentary of decisions. In fact, in human society we don't hold people under a certain age morally/legally responsible for what they do in the same way that we hold older units responsible who have collect more data. As the computer is given more data it can perform more complex processes, just like humans. The computer can't control how it obtained its parts, just like human biology. The computer can't control the environment that feeds it the data that allows for more complex decisions, which I believe is the same process that takes place in the biological machine of the human being.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5691
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:52 pm
It should be pointed out the first criteria for this thread has yet to be met, that being a good definition of "free-will" we can work with. Something I just noticed about the first five words of Wiki's definition...
Wiki wrote:
Free will raises the question
It seems like even this media is saying "free-will?". I think we can all grasp the "will" componant of the phrase, but the "free" part is the sticking point.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
) wrote:
