What is free will?

[Baldeee]

like I said logic is not evidence.... for real evidence you gotta look around you.....

Where have I, or anyone else, said otherwise?

perhaps you would like to have a go at the "deterministic logic"of this phenomena:

do I have to spell it out for you or can you see the 6 sided polygon on the North pole of Saturn?

You think this is evidence of the universe being non-deterministic?
What about it do you think is evidence for such?
If you want to just understand the phenomenon, look it up on Wikipedia for a start.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Where have I, or anyone else, said otherwise?
You think this is evidence of the universe being non-deterministic?
What about it do you think is evidence for such?
If you want to just understand the phenomenon, look it up on Wikipedia for a start.

How about partially deterministic, very little predetermination, with free will being real and evidenced?

What pigeon hole does that make my fit into?
an incompatibilist compatibilist perhaps?

... can I have chips with a side salad with that please.....?

The only thing doing any predeterming are those with free will.

 

[Baldeee]

There no evidence to support the strictly deterministic universe. None. Zilch. How many pages more will be needed is yet to be determined oops! Pre-determined.

Who, in any of the pages of this thread, or any other on this subject, has said that there is?
I certainly haven't.
Sarkus doesn't seem to have.
Capracus?
No, not him either.
Not even the likes of iceaura and JamesR.
We're simply debating whether freewill is possible in a deterministic universe.
Some say it is, and I and others disagree.
Even you disagree.
The reason why we're debating this is because the deterministic universe is the easiest to understand.
And there are differences in our view of free will even with this easiest-to-understand universe.
If everyone had reached agreement that free will is impossible in the predetermined universe then we would undoubtedly move on to non-deterministic universe, such as the probabilistic universe that ours seems to be.

And if one wishes to jump straight on to claiming that while freewill does not exist in a deterministic universe but does in a non-deterministic one, then they really do need to explain not just what the difference is between the deterministic and non-deterministic universe they are considering, but how this difference leads to free will.
You have offered the Heisenberg Uncertainy Principle as an allusion to a difference.
So what difference is this alluding to?
How does that difference lead to free will?

If you can't explain yourself then you'll come across as nothing but a child in a pram throwing his toys around while the grown-ups are trying to have a conversation.

 

[Baldeee]

How about partially deterministic, very little predetermination, with free will being real and evidenced?

I can string some words together as well, only I'll at least try to make them logically coherent.

What do you mean by "partially deterministic"?
Is that any different from being "partially whole?"
And "very little predetermination"?
Surely there is either predetermination or there is not.

And we can only assess whether there is free will or not (at least in the non trivial sense) once you have actually provided details of the mechanism of your universe, if not determinism.

What pigeon hole does that make my fit into?
an incompatibilist compatibilist perhaps?

An incompatibilist who can't come up with a coherent alternative to determinism.
If you mean indeterministic or non-deterministic then okay, but what mechanism is it that gives rise to the indeterminism?
It seems as though you want to conclude that freewill exists, you believe it can't exist in a deterministic universe, but you can't really say anything more than that.
But because of the conclusion you want to reach, you simply throw around things that you think is evidence for your a priori belief, but you don't actually examine it and see if it really is evidence.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I can string some words together as well, only I'll at least try to make them logically coherent.

What do you mean by "partially deterministic"?
Is that any different from being "partially whole?"
And "very little predetermination"?
Surely there is either predetermination or there is not.

And we can only assess whether there is free will or not (at least in the non trivial sense) once you have actually provided details of the mechanism of your universe, if not determinism.
An incompatibilist who can't come up with a coherent alternative to determinism.
If you mean indeterministic or non-deterministic then okay, but what mechanism is it that gives rise to the indeterminism?
It seems as though you want to conclude that freewill exists, you believe it can't exist in a deterministic universe, but you can't really say anything more than that.
But because of the conclusion you want to reach, you simply throw around things that you think is evidence for your a priori belief, but you don't actually examine it and see if it really is evidence.

I really do not care about how you can't get your head around things like deterministic events only being claimed as such in hindsight, so I wont bother...
I am here to discuss free will....not some fantasy deterministic non-evidenced pseudoscience.

I have no argument against your deterministic universe disallowing freewill and if you think that it has anything to do with reality which you and others have consistently implied, moving the goal posts from logical abstraction to reality, when ever it suits you, then you have to provide evidence to support it.

For the record:
Are you stating that your strictly deterministic universe is real or abstraction?

I bet you wont answer a simple goal post question....
If it is a logical abstraction, a thought experiment, a gedanken then we have nothing further to discuss. It was resolved pages ago.
If however you believe it to be real then we do....evidence is required.
but you have to decide which it is....

 

[Baldeee]

I really do not care about how you can't get your head around things like deterministic events only being claimed as such in hindsight, so I wont bother...

???
If we are starting with the assumption of a determinstic universe then all events are deterministic, and can be claimed as such at any time, whether in hindsight, beforehand, or during an event,
So why do you think they can only be claimed as such in hindsight?

I am here to discuss free will....not some fantasy deterministic non-evidenced pseudoscience.

First we get agreement on the incompatibility (that you previously rejected), then we move on to how you think the universe is non-deterministic, and how that mechanism for non-determinism leads to free will, in your view.
Can you do that?

I have no argument against your deterministic universe disallowing freewill...

Great, then we share the incompatibilist view.
So why do you think that those such as iceaura and JamesR (the compatibilists among us) are adamant that free will exists in a deterministic universe?
What is it that you think they are missing in their understanding that you and I seem not to be?

...and if you think that it has anything to do with reality which you and others have consistently implied, moving the goal posts from logical abstraction to reality, when ever it suits you, then you have to provide evidence to support it.

I've never implied it.
I have been simply assuming it for purposes of discussion, and been quite clear that that was what I have been doing.
Because it is with regard freewill in such a deterministic universe where compatibilists and incompatibilists disagree.

For the record:
Are you stating that your strictly deterministic universe is real or abstraction?

I consider it an assumption for purposes of discussing the in/compatibilist positions.
For the record, I do not think the universe is strictly deterministic.

I bet you wont answer a simple goal post question....

Why would I not?

If it is a logical abstraction, a thought experiment, a gedanken then we have nothing further to discuss. It was resolved pages ago.

Not with iceaura, not with JamesR, or yazata, or other compatibilists.
With you, okay, you consider it resolved, yet when you try to dispute a post between a compatibilist and incompatibilist, and you intend to be relevant to that discussion, you need to understand what they're both assuming: a deterministic universe.
If you don't accept that premise then you need to be quite clear that your point/argument does not start there, so that it can duly ignored as irrelevant in the context of the in/compatibilist discussion.

If however you believe it to be real then we do....evidence is required.
but you have to decide which it is....

Not for the discussion between compatibilist and incompatibilism I don't.
Both are views of freewill in a deterministic universe, so that much is assumed.

Personally I think the universe seems to be probabilistic, but I see nothing within that probability (and inherent randomness therein) that would suggest freewill is any less an illusion than it would be in the deterministic universe.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So why do you think that those such as iceaura and JamesR (the compatibilists among us) are adamant that free will exists in a deterministic universe?
What is it that you think they are missing in their understanding that you and I seem not to be?

They are attempting to accommodate both the abstraction of absolute determinism and the obvious ( to most of humanity ) reality of free will.
I am not convinced that they are compatabilist either, due to the apparent confusion over abstraction vs reality.

This is what happens when the debates goal posts constantly shift during discussion.

I am sure if Ice was asked to state his position on a strictly deterministic logic he would have no problem of an illusion freewill either, but he is arguing using real evidence so it appears he is not dealing with your logical abstraction paradigm. He is attempting to demonstrate that regardless of what logic you may come up with, freewill is evidenced empirically, circumstantially and anecdotally.

So you go on and on about the logic being bullet proof and it is, if the premise considered true. But logic, no matter how bullet proof, is NOT evidence and so it must remain an abstraction until proven other wise.

Classic cross purpose discussion...

... just my observations ....

 

[Quantum Quack]

If we are starting with the assumption of a determinstic universe then all events are deterministic, and can be claimed as such at any time, whether in hindsight, beforehand, or during an event,
So why do you think they can only be claimed as such in hindsight?

you see the problem with this is you have again, attempted to control the debate by pulling it back to your abstraction.
My response was about the reality. Not your abstraction.
ie.
"In reality events can only be deemed deterministic in hind sight"
But as I stated I don't think it is possible for this to be explained in away that will make sense to you, simply because you have demonstrated the inability to maintain context through out this discussion.
When you demonstrate a capacity to maintain context perhaps we can move forward.

 

[Baldeee]

They are attempting to accommodate both the abstraction of absolute determinism and the obvious ( to most of humanity ) reality of free will.

awhether they consider it an abstraction or not is irrelevant when it is assumed for purposes of debate that the universe is deterministic.

I am not convinced that they are compatabilist either, due to the apparent confusion over abstraction vs reality.

I don't think they're confused at all.
I think they know in their own mind, if not explicitly stated by them, whether they think the universe is deterministic or not.
Try asking them.

This is what happens when the debates goal posts constantly shift during discussion.

No goalpost shifting.
Just your inability to score.

I am sure if Ice was asked to state his position on a strictly deterministic logic he would have no problem of an illusion freewill either, but he is arguing using real evidence so it appears he is not dealing with your logical abstraction paradigm. He is attempting to demonstrate that regardless of what logic you may come up with, freewill is evidenced empirically, circumstantially and anecdotally.

No, he is quite clear that he considers freewill to exist in a deterministic universe.
The disagreement he has is what it means for the will to be free.

So you go on and on about the logic being bullet proof and it is, if the premise considered true.

So we agree.
Others don't.

But logic, no matter how bullet proof, is NOT evidence and so it must remain an abstraction until proven other wise.

No one has said otherwise.

 

[Baldeee]

you see the problem with this is you have again, attempted to control the debate by pulling it back to your abstraction.

No, I am giving context.
The discussion was about the deterministic universe.
I was placing your criticism within that context and showing it baseless.

My response was about the reality. Not your abstraction.

And as such irrelevant to the discussion that has been going on and that I am focusing on.

i.e.
"In reality events can only be deemed deterministic in hind sight"

If you wish to change the context then you really do need to be clearer about it.
See how your reworded sentence here is that much clearer as to the context you wish to move to?
If you don't make it clear then it is not us at fault for continuing within the context we have been.

But as I stated I don't think it is possible for this to be explained in away that will make sense to you, simply because you have demonstrated the inability to maintain context through out this discussion.

Priceless.
Fine, you don't want to explain things to me, even now you have managed to explain that you have shifted context.
That's okay.
It's all up to you.
But the projection of your own faults onto others is most humourous.

When you demonstrate a capacity to maintain context perhaps we can move forward.

Interesting that when I actually start to ask questions of your position, now that you have elucidated that you wish to discuss your view of freewill in a non deterministic universe, you clam up.
What are we to make of that?

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, I am giving context.
The discussion was about the deterministic universe.
I was placing your criticism within that context and showing it baseless.
And as such irrelevant to the discussion that has been going on and that I am focusing on.
If you wish to change the context then you really do need to be clearer about it.
See how your reworded sentence here is that much clearer as to the context you wish to move to?
If you don't make it clear then it is not us at fault for continuing within the context we have been.
Priceless.
Fine, you don't want to explain things to me, even now you have managed to explain that you have shifted context.
That's okay.
It's all up to you.
But the projection of your own faults onto others is most humourous.
Interesting that when I actually start to ask questions of your position, now that you have elucidated that you wish to discuss your view of freewill in a non deterministic universe, you clam up.
What are we to make of that?

I have said all I am going to say on your fantasy universe. You can read it when ever you want to.
You offer nothing but consistent deception.
You have abso0lutely no evidence to support your outrageous claim that free will is an illusion. The fact that you are prepared to make such a claim with out evidential support is highly indicative of the intellectual dishonesty you must confront every time you look in the mirror.
Honestly, you do not deserve a way out of your self imposed logic trap...enjoy!

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, I am giving context.
The discussion was about the deterministic universe.
I was placing your criticism within that context and showing it baseless.
And as such irrelevant to the discussion that has been going on and that I am focusing on.
If you wish to change the context then you really do need to be clearer about it.
See how your reworded sentence here is that much clearer as to the context you wish to move to?
If you don't make it clear then it is not us at fault for continuing within the context we have been.
Priceless.
Fine, you don't want to explain things to me, even now you have managed to explain that you have shifted context.
That's okay.
It's all up to you.
But the projection of your own faults onto others is most humourous.
Interesting that when I actually start to ask questions of your position, now that you have elucidated that you wish to discuss your view of freewill in a non deterministic universe, you clam up.
What are we to make of that?

you really are unwell Baldeee... your posts, your intense attempts to manipulate and control are strikingly obvious.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, I am giving context.
The discussion was about the deterministic universe.
I was placing your criticism within that context and showing it baseless.
And as such irrelevant to the discussion that has been going on and that I am focusing on.
If you wish to change the context then you really do need to be clearer about it.
See how your reworded sentence here is that much clearer as to the context you wish to move to?
If you don't make it clear then it is not us at fault for continuing within the context we have been.
Priceless.
Fine, you don't want to explain things to me, even now you have managed to explain that you have shifted context.
That's okay.
It's all up to you.
But the projection of your own faults onto others is most humourous.
Interesting that when I actually start to ask questions of your position, now that you have elucidated that you wish to discuss your view of freewill in a non deterministic universe, you clam up.
What are we to make of that?

if you wish to discuss your fictional universe, there really isn't anything to discuss.
If you wish to discuss reality then go for it.... but I have posted all I am going to post until I have evidence that I am not wasting my time...

 

[Capracus]

Well... evidence is needed.. yet to see any. Sad


We have plenty of written evidence that you believe in predermination...just no actuall evidence to support your belif that freewill is an illusion and that we are just automated drones.

Like I said earlier, logic and observation support the existence of a deterministic reality. When observation in all scientific fields demonstrates that determinism is the working principle that governs all material behavior, then it's logical to assume that a determinism is currently our best model of reality. What more could you ask for? A letter from the Pope?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Like I said earlier, logic and observation support the existence of a deterministic reality. When observation in all scientific fields demonstrates that determinism is the working principle that governs all material behavior, then it's logical to assume that a determinism is currently our best model of reality. What more could you ask for? A letter from the Pope?

and that is your evidence... a mere logical extension to include human self determination? really?

By logical extension human freewill is an illusion... is that it?
is that all you have?

 

[Baldeee]

Ah, the joy when logging on to find you have 3 replies.
Followed by the disappointment when you discover they're all from Quantum Quack.


So...

I have said all I am going to say on your fantasy universe. You can read it when ever you want to.
You offer nothing but consistent deception.

There has been no deception: I have been quite clear in my position throughout, and it is that that has remained consistent.
But your projection is again noted.

You have abso0lutely no evidence to support your outrageous claim that free will is an illusion.

You mean other than all the evidence that supports the universe being at best probabilistic (look it up if you don't know)?
No, I don't argue from personal incredulity as you appear to be (labelling the claim "outrageous" as you do).
I am happy to look at the evidence, and go from there.
Starting with the deterministic universe is a simplification so as to remove the inherent randomness in the probabilistic universe that all evidence seems to point to.
The logic that leads from a deterministic universe to the lack of free will... a conclusion, need I remind you, that you concur with... is also pertinent to the probabilistic universe.
If you disagree, please explain or argue how the inherent randomness at the quantum level leads to free will, to the ability to choose between genuine (rather than merely imagined) alternatives.

The fact that you are prepared to make such a claim with out evidential support is highly indicative of the intellectual dishonesty you must confront every time you look in the mirror.

So now you have nothing left but to throw these humourous insults at me?
Fair enough.

Honestly, you do not deserve a way out of your self imposed logic trap...enjoy!

There is no trap.
You have accepted the conclusion when one starts from the assumption of the deterministic universe.
Add in a smattering of probability, that the evidence (QM) suggests is inherent within our universe, and the conclusion still seems to hold.
Unless, of course, you can offer an explanation for how a deterministic universe doesn't allow for free will (which you agree) yet a probabilistic universe does?
Or if not probabilistic, maybe another type of non-deterministic universe?
You are the one who advocates a non trivial free will in a non deterministic universe and you concede one is not possible in a deterministic universe.
So explain the difference.
At the moment you accept one half and then just wave your arms at the same things that the compatibilists do and go "look, there, free will clearly exists".

 

[Baldeee]

you really are unwell Baldeee... your posts, your intense attempts to manipulate and control are strikingly obvious.

Yet more accusations of mental illness, Quantum Quack?
There is only a desire for people to be clear about what they are discussing.
And to be consistent in their arguments.
I was also only interested in the non-trivial notions of free will that the compatibilists claim are possible (I.e. the discussion that assumes a probabilistic universe) but you have certainly piqued my interest with your claim that a non-deterministic universe can also provide it.
Yet when I ask you about it... nothing.
I give you my attention, I make room in my proverbial calendar for you to lay forth your case.
And from you... nothing.

if you wish to discuss your fictional universe, there really isn't anything to discuss.

Not with you, because you, like me, are an incompatibilist: we agree that there is no free will in a deterministic universe.
The discussion on this matter is with the compatibilists who claim there is free will in such a universe.

If you wish to discuss reality then go for it.... but I have posted all I am going to post until I have evidence that I am not wasting my time...

This is a free forum and you can post whatever and whenever you want.
I am telling you now that I am here to listen to what you have to say.
You wish to talk about the non-deterministic universe and how that obviously gives rise to the free will such that you think it outrageous that anyone could think otherwise.
So, post your argument for the non-trivial notion of free will that you think exists in such a non-deterministic universe, but that you think doesn't exist in the deterministic universe?
I am all ears.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yet more accusations of mental illness, Quantum Quack?
There is only a desire for people to be clear about what they are discussing.
And to be consistent in their arguments.
I was also only interested in the non-trivial notions of free will that the compatibilists claim are possible (I.e. the discussion that assumes a probabilistic universe) but you have certainly piqued my interest with your claim that a non-deterministic universe can also provide it.
Yet when I ask you about it... nothing.
I give you my attention, I make room in my proverbial calendar for you to lay forth your case.
And from you... nothing.
Not with you, because you, like me, are an incompatibilist: we agree that there is no free will in a deterministic universe.
The discussion on this matter is with the compatibilists who claim there is free will in such a universe.
This is a free forum and you can post whatever and whenever you want.
I am telling you now that I am here to listen to what you have to say.
You wish to talk about the non-deterministic universe and how that obviously gives rise to the free will such that you think it outrageous that anyone could think otherwise.
So, post your argument for the non-trivial notion of free will that you think exists in such a non-deterministic universe, but that you think doesn't exist in the deterministic universe?
I am all ears.

I'll wait till after Capracus posts a response...

 

[Capracus]

and that is your evidence... a mere logical extension to include human self determination? really?

By logical extension human freewill is an illusion... is that it?
is that all you have?

A mere logical extension? If the scientific consensus is that determinism is basis for all material behavior, that would include your constituent matter as well. And yes, if non human matter is determined/unfree, then so is the human variety. The reality of the issue is not that I need to prove the fact of universally observed deterministic material behavior, but that you need to show that there a logical exception for the material behavior in humans.

Add in a smattering of probability, that the evidence (QM) suggests is inherent within our universe, and the conclusion still seems to hold.

If you take a Bohmian interpretation of QM, the issue of inherent probability goes away.

 

[Quantum Quack]

A mere logical extension? If the scientific consensus is that determinism is basis for all material behavior, that would include your constituent matter as well. And yes, if non human matter is determined/unfree, then so is the human variety. The reality of the issue is not that I need to prove the fact of universally observed deterministic material behavior, but that you need to show that there a logical exception for the material behavior in humans.
If you take a Bohmian interpretation of QM, the issue of inherent probability goes away.

Life?