What is free will?

[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.

ok...
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...

 

[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.

I was fortunate enough to discover a digital 3d flight simulator that has been marketed to include over 150,000 accurately plotted stars (Milky Way) With the aid of a fictional space craft fitted with hyper drive I have been checking out the stars, mostly in the Orion sector, including exo planets, moons and so on....
You know what? After a while you realize that it all isn't that clever , in fact the stars are actually quite boring.
The human body/being is by many orders of magnitude cleverer in it's make up than anything you will find out yonder. Living, breathing, thinking, self determining and free willed.

And you guys want to apply some sort of overly simplistic logical extension to something that leaves the greater universe for "dead" as far as cleverness, biological sophistication is concerned.

To simply state that humans can be considered merely as lumps of deterministic matter is absurd.

 

[Baldeee]

ok...
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...

So you don't want to debate about what you see as a fictional universe, but you also aren't willing to discuss what you consider to be the non-deterministic universe of reality?

And you guys want to apply some sort of overly simplistic logical extension to something that leaves the greater universe for "dead" as far as cleverness, biological sophistication is concerned.

To simply state that humans can be considered merely as lumps of deterministic matter is absurd.

If all you have is appeals to consequence and/or emotion, not to mention your tendency here for argumentum ad Hitler, then you really are just wasting your time.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So you don't want to debate about what you see as a fictional universe, but you also aren't willing to discuss what you consider to be the non-deterministic universe of reality?
If all you have is appeals to consequence and/or emotion, not to mention your tendency here for argumentum ad Hitler, then you really are just wasting your time.

you really are a nasty piece of work eh?

 

[Baldeee]

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

If.
My knowledge of QM is not great, though.
I could claim to support such an interpretation, but in my case it would be merely to satisfy a conclusion, and thus question begging.
However, I'm not sure there is evidence for any interpretation of QM that can give rise to a non-trivial free will.
Maybe Quantum Quack will be able to provide some in due course?

 

[Baldeee]

you really are a nasty piece of work eh?

How so?
You said you don't want to discuss what you see as a fictional universe (the deterministic one).
Okay, we won't discuss that.
I then ask you some questions about how you see freewill being possible in what you see as a non-deterministic reality.
You now don't even want to discuss that.
So what am I to think?
Really, what is it you expect?

Or is it that I am highlighting your appeals to emotion, to consequence, and your arguments from personal incredulity for what they are?
If you have issue with me highlighting them, the simple solution would be not to post them, would it not?

But anyway, back to the topic... are you ready to discuss your notion of free will and how it might exist within a non-deterministic universe?

 

[Quantum Quack]

How so?
You said you don't want to discuss what you see as a fictional universe (the deterministic one).
Okay, we won't discuss that.
I then ask you some questions about how you see freewill being possible in what you see as a non-deterministic reality.
You now don't even want to discuss that.
So what am I to think?
Really, what is it you expect?

Or is it that I am highlighting your appeals to emotion, to consequence, and your arguments from personal incredulity for what they are?
If you have issue with me highlighting them, the simple solution would be not to post them, would it not?

But anyway, back to the topic... are you ready to discuss your notion of free will and how it might exist within a non-deterministic universe?

No for 2 reasons.

 

[Quantum Quack]

How so?
You said you don't want to discuss what you see as a fictional universe (the deterministic one).
Okay, we won't discuss that.
I then ask you some questions about how you see freewill being possible in what you see as a non-deterministic reality.
You now don't even want to discuss that.
So what am I to think?
Really, what is it you expect?

Or is it that I am highlighting your appeals to emotion, to consequence, and your arguments from personal incredulity for what they are?
If you have issue with me highlighting them, the simple solution would be not to post them, would it not?

But anyway, back to the topic... are you ready to discuss your notion of free will and how it might exist within a non-deterministic universe?

1. I never said that it did exist in a non deterministic universe. It exists in a deterministic universe but no where near the one you are fantazing about.
2. I don't usually share my thoughts with nasty people.

And you are a nasty person..

 

[Baldeee]

1. I never said that it did exist in a non deterministic universe. It exists in a deterministic universe but no where near the one you are fantazing about.

I have simply referred to a universe that is deterministic, not a specific one.
When it comes to universes, they are either deterministic or they are not.
It is a binary position.
It either is, or it is not.
If you think it holds for the universe you think I am abstracting (as you have agreed) then it holds for all.

So let me ask, for the sake of clarity for all: do you consider a non-trivial freewill to be compatible with a deterministic universe?
If so, how?
Do you think, as you have implied here, that it is compatible in one deterministic universe but not another deterministic universe?
If so, what are the differences between the two universes that allows compatibility in one and not the other?

2. I don't usually share my thoughts with nasty people.

And you are a nasty person..

If you consider it being nasty to highlight deficiencies in an argument or comment presented, then yes, I am nasty.

 

[Michael 345]

And you are a nasty person..

If you consider it being nasty to highlight deficiencies in an argument or comment presented, then yes, I am nasty.

I can almost visualise

• eyes wide open
• frothing at the mouth
• arms reaching foreword
• hands in ready to grip mode
• stiff leg Frankie walk

An he thinks YOU nasty????

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I can almost visualise

• eyes wide open
• frothing at the mouth
• arms reaching foreword
• hands in ready to grip mode
• stiff leg Frankie walk
• 

Hmmm... i dout thats the case... you see... QQ believes that he has free will... why woud someone wit free will work hisself up into such a lather

 

[Michael 345]

Hmmm... i dout thats the case... you see... QQ believes that he has free will... why woud someone wit free will work hisself up into such a lather

Doing the lord's work?

Of course he is free to do so, these nasty people must be exterminated

If he doesn't of course he suffers in the pits of hell

Great free choice what ol' chap

I saw something recently which looked interesting

If I find it again will copy and paste

 

[iceaura]

The wizard is trivial (to me, to Baldeee, to Capracus I presume).

Yes.
And since that is the location of freedom of will, you are unable to discuss it.

And where have I ever claimed that the wizard, the process that we refer to as free will, does not exist?

We? There is no we.
In denying the existence of alternatives, when a human being makes a decision.
In equating the degrees of freedom possessed by a brick and a human being making a decision as "the same".
In posting carelessness like this:

I have been quite clear that I think it does exist. It exists in the same way that a mirage exists: it is not what it appears to be.

To whom?
It appears to be an alternative, one of those from which a choice will be made, to anyone measuring and observing. It shares that reality with all other such observations - such as those identifying chairs and rocks.

Imagine that retroactive classification system applied to a baseball pitcher throwing a pitch sequence: first pitch, the fastball choice was real and the others mirages; second pitch, the fastball choice is a mirage and the curveball real; third pitch, back to reality for the fastball choice; etc - - - every one of them reclassified after the decision is made, by you - not the pitcher, not the catcher, and most definitely not the batter. The pitcher gains and loses and regains capabilities, actual genuine observed counted aspects of their reality and nature, from one minute to the next.
It's moronic. Half the words in the dictionary lose their meaning, starting with "capability", which has never before meant "only what will actually have happened".
- - - -

Some of it, true. But it is particles (atoms and molecues) which are the constituent parts of all patterns.

They are patterns themselves - of quarks etc.
They are also substrate, for higher order patterns.
Substrates do not cause patterns.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes.
And since that is the location of freedom of will, you are unable to discuss it.

Not unable at all. But, like Baldeee, I'm not too interested in the trivial notion of free will that I consider to be, as the wizard is, illusory, for the reasons stated.

We? There is no we.

There is a "we", because it is more than just me that considers free will to be a process, a process that is trivially "free".

In denying the existence of alternatives, when a human being makes a decision.

I'm not denying them, I'm simply recognising them for what they are: imagined alternatives.

In equating the degrees of freedom possessed by a brick and a human being making a decision as "the same".

Again, that's not denying that the process of free will exists. And I am not equating the degree of freedom between the two, but rather that it is the same type of freedom, the same trivial notion, in both cases.

In posting carelessness like this:

There is nothing careless about that comment. It says exactly what I mean it to say. I deny that the appearance of the mirage is at it seems to be, but instead is a process that gives rise to that appearance without actually being the reality of what it appears to be.

To whom

To those that think the mirage is a reality that it is not. To those that are desperate for thirst and see the desert mirage as an oasis and believe it to be real, rather than illusory.

It appears to be an alternative, one of those from which a choice will be made, to anyone measuring and observing.
It shares that reality with all other such observations - such as those identifying chairs and rocks.

Please feel free to pick up such an alternative. Scoop it out of your mind and post an image of it, please. That is the reality of chairs and rocks: what we observe corresponds to facts. Imagined alternatives do not. They are counterfactual.

Imagine that retroactive classification system applied to a baseball pitcher throwing a pitch sequence: first pitch, the fastball choice was real and the others mirages; second pitch, the fastball choice is a mirage and the curveball real; third pitch, back to reality for the fastball choice; etc - - - every one of them reclassified after the decision is made, by you - not the pitcher, not the catcher, and most definitely not the batter. The pitcher gains and loses and regains capabilities, actual genuine observed counted aspects of their reality and nature, from one minute to the next.

Each time they imagine alternatives. The alternatives they imagine were predetermined. Their process of "free will" concludes on one imagined choice, and does so in a predetermined manner. The output is predetermined.

It's moronic. Half the words in the dictionary lose their meaning, starting with "capability", which has never before meant "only what will actually have happened".

Why would it mean that now? It would mean as it means now: if the inputs allow then the system has the ability to do X.

But otherwise it seems just an appeal to consequence on your part. Are you QQ in disguise?

 

[iceaura]

Not unable at all.

Prove it. Post one post - just one - containing no obvious errors and bogus presumptions about that notion of freedom of will. No stupid bricks, no attempting to deny freedom of will on the grounds of a predetermined universe.

I'm not denying them, I'm simply recognising them for what they are: imagined alternatives.

They are identical in every physical property to the other imagined alternatives - including the one that will be chosen. They share the same physical reality.

Why would it mean that now? It would mean as it means now: if the inputs allow then the system has the ability to do X.

You deny that meaning.

what we observe corresponds to facts. Imagined alternatives do not. They are counterfactual.

That is false. They do correspond to observed facts.

Each time they imagine alternatives. The alternatives they imagine were predetermined. Their process of "free will" concludes on one imagined choice, and does so in a predetermined manner. The output is predetermined.

Yep. By the universe.
And how does the universe do that? By having them choose from among those alternatives - those built in predetermined capabilities, all of which genuinely and actually exist - according the criteria which will become "input" for their decision.

 

[Sarkus]

Prove it. Post one post - just one - containing no obvious errors and bogus presumptions about that notion of freedom of will. No stupid bricks, no attempting to deny freedom of will on the grounds of a predetermined universe.

I haven't posted any with obvious errors, nor with any bogus presumptions, despite your assertions to the contrary. If you want to discuss your notion of what it means to be free, what I consider to be a trivial notion, you are quite free to post about it to your heart's content. I'm not here to play your childish games. Perhaps children can't distinguish between unwilling and unable, but you? Seriously?

They are identical in every physical property to the other imagined alternatives - including the one that will be chosen. They share the same physical reality.

Yes, physical reality as imagined alternatives. They exist only in the mind. Only the actual alternative that comes to be has actual existence in reality beyond the imagination.

You deny that meaning.

I don't deny that meaning at all. It is the same meaning that I have taken it to be throughout, leading to the trivial notion of freewill. It is trivial that if you enter 1+1 into a calculator you get 2, but if you enter 1+2 you get 3. It is trivial that if the input to a thermostat is too cold then it turns the heating on etc. A thermostat has capability. I don't deny that. I never have done. You're simply grasping at straws.

That is false. They do correspond to observed facts

Name me one imagined alternative, other than the one chosen, that corresponds to fact. Just one. Any one will do.
And if you start going on about drivers at traffic lights then I'll tell you now that they are not the same alternatives each time. Each run has its own imagined alternatives because it has its own inputs to the system, unique to that run. Being able to provide different outputs when the inputs are different each time is not going to cut it.
So please, provide me an example of one imagined alternative, other than the one chosen, that can ever correspond to observed fact?

Yep. By the universe.
And how does the universe do that? By having them choose from among those alternatives - those built in predetermined capabilities, all of which genuinely and actually exist - according the criteria which will become "input" for their decision.

Yes, they exist but as imagined alternatives, not genuine alternatives. If they were genuine then they could have been an output from the system if given the same inputs. But because of the inputs being predetermined, and the process being deterministic, the output is predetermined. Simply no ability to have actually selected any other imagined alternative than the one that was ultimately selected. Thus the other imagined alternatives are not genuine.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Hmmm... i dout thats the case... you see... QQ believes that he has free will... why woud someone wit free will work hisself up into such a lather

believing and knowing are two very different things...

It is the fact that I have free will that allows me to quote Albert Einstein:
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”

Something that Baldeee, Sarkus, iceaura and a few others need to reminded of.
Pages and pages of repetitive, nonsense.

Your unknowns:
Unknowns: What is Life?
Unknowns: What is the relationship between life and will?

Come on guys, you haven't provided any further insight into the issue in ages ( years actually ). Surely you can do better than repeat yourselves ad-nauseam....

"Like glorified pole dancers endlessly circling an issue that wont go away" ~anon
“They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.” - Samuel Beckett ( Waiting for Godot)

Notes:
Nasty people invariably end up talking with only them selves

 

[iceaura]

Yes, physical reality as imagined alternatives. They exist only in the mind.

That's where they all exist, that's where the decision happens. All human decisions happen in the human mind, which is something that exists in the real world. It has a nature. It acts. It determines things.

It is trivial that if you enter 1+1 into a calculator you get 2, but if you enter 1+2 you get 3. It is trivial that if the input to a thermostat is too cold then it turns the heating on etc. A thermostat has capability. I don't deny that. I never have done.

And you project that logical level of decision unto human decisions based on criteria, because you have refused to pay attention to physical reality.

Name me one imagined alternative, other than the one chosen, that corresponds to fact.

You already asked this. The answer to that often repeated and very stupid request remains, as always: The driver approaches the light, about to make a decision between two alternatives. Stop; Go. The driver is capable of either one, and the decision will depend only on the perceived color of the light - which does not exist yet, as input.
There are two mutually exclusive alternatives to observe, and the existence of both of them is a fact.

Yes, they exist but as imagined alternatives, not genuine alternatives.

They have the same nature, reality, and observed physical status, as every other alternative. They are all "genuine" in the natural world, or none of them are - including what will turn out to have happened, after the decision is made.

But because of the inputs being predetermined, and the process being deterministic, the output is predetermined.

Irrelevant. We aren't discussing the freedom of will of the universe.

Simply no ability to have actually selected any other imagined alternative than the one that was ultimately selected.

False. A different color of light would have produced a different decision.

Thus the other imagined alternatives are not genuine.

None of them are, or were, supernatural. None of them could override physical reality, cause and effect, etc.
None of them. Not even the one decided upon.
- - -

If they were genuine then they could have been an output from the system if given the same inputs.

Nonsense.
You keep making that supernatural assumption, you keep verifying that my assessment of your use of words like "genuine" and "actual" was spot on, you do this in direct response to my posts, and you cannot help yourself.

Freedom is supernatural by assumption, in your world - an assumption you cannot drop. Ideas based on natural or real world degrees of freedom are therefore incomprehensible to you. You are unable to discuss them.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The quote from Einstein needs to be clarified as I am sure what he meant with:
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”

would read more like:
“The definition of insanity is using the same strategy over and over again, but expecting different results”

 

[cluelusshusbund]

The quote from Einstein needs to be clarified as I am sure what he meant with:
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”

would read more like:
“The definition of insanity is using the same strategy over and over again, but expecting different results”

The discussion changes a bit post after post an i see signs of progress... an sure thers a bit of good-natured fun bein had but i see the free will issue as bein like a brain teaser that some take longer to catch on to (we have all been thar)... an iceaura is very smart/intelligent an may even have a iq as high as mine... an i expect any time for him to say... Oooo.... i get it now... free will realy is an illusion... an WoW... it realy is fascinatin