What is free will?

[iceaura]

Yes, and lacking non-trivial freedom, as explained.

Lacking supernatural freedom has been stipulated to by all, from the beginning. You don't need to explain what we all agreed to long ago.

My bad - the "predermined, and lacking non-trivial freedom" should have been worded so as to be clear they were the conclusions from the assumption of determinism.

That was clear. What you are denying is the extra assumption you had to make to draw that conclusion - that only the supernatural is "non-trivial", "genuine", "actual", "real", and so forth, freedom.

Reasoning, yes. Assumption, no.

You reason from your assumptions. That's how reason works. Your assumption that a predetermined universe of natural law conflicts with freedom of will in a driver (what I have accurately labeled the "supernatural" assumption) is a dubious and careless and ill-considered one, is all. You know that yourself - that's why you deny making it. When you reason from it, you beg the central question of freedom of will.
Sarkus, post: 3570212, member: 18418"]Ah, you finally seem to recognise the difference, then.[/QUOTE]
Your turn.

Noone has ever disputed that the ability to imagine alternatives is an observed fact. Noone.

That's one reason I haven't been talking about any such dispute.

The disagreement is whether those alternatives are genuine or simply imagined.

You should use the accurate word: supernatural. When you use "genuine", you confuse yourself.

More accurate phrasing of what was intended would be: "I am paying attention to physical reality, a reality that is, as assumed, deterministic, and thus predetermined, and lacking non-trivial freedom."

That's basically the same phrasing, only with the irrelevancy that is confusing you the most bolded (determined by natural law is the key, predetermined adds nothing). In particular, you have once again posted the conclusion you draw from your supernatural assumption - that determination by natural law excludes freedom of will - in the same language you have been using for many pages now. And despite my best efforts - quoting, explaining in detail, pointing directly at the bogus step in your "logic" - you don't appear to even be aware, yet, of using that assumption: you bolded an irrelevancy, and then threw in the major blunder as if it were unquestioned.

Whether there is any (what Baldeee and I at least consider) non-trivial notion of freedom within the system. You say yes, I say otherwise.

Nonsense. I say no, based on reading your explanation of what you mean by "non-trivial".
When your use of "non-trivial" has been clarified to mean "supernatural", as you have so often done (different output from same input etc etc) we are seen to be in perfect agreement so far: there is no supernatural freedom within the system. We both say no. We both agree that identical inputs to a given system in a deterministic universe will yield identical outputs, and there is no freedom to do otherwise, to violate natural law and so forth, anywhere in that universe. Supernatural freedom does not exist.

Which clears the field for a discussion of freedom of will in the real, natural, world. If we can get you to think.

 

[Sarkus]

Lacking supernatural freedom has been stipulated to by all, from the beginning. You don't need to explain what we all agreed to long ago.

I'm talking about non-trivial freedom, not the supernatural. If you conclude that the only way such freedom can be argued to exist is via the supernatural, then yeah, we are in agreement.

That was clear. What you are denying is the extra assumption you had to make to draw that conclusion - that only the supernatural is "non-trivial", "genuine", "actual", "real", and so forth, freedom.

Yet there categorically is no such assumption being made, no matter how often or how loudly you shout about it being there.

Your assumption that a predetermined universe of natural law conflicts with freedom of will...

is not an assumption but a conclusion. The rest is snipped for subsequent irrelevance.

That's one reason I haven't been talking about any such dispute.

You have been saying numerous times that I am denying the capability. Now you seem to agree that I'm not denying it? Which is it?

You should use the accurate word: supernatural. When you use "genuine", you confuse yourself.

If one has concluded it to be supernatural if it is to exist then you can use that word if you like.

That's basically the same phrasing...

Yet changes the meaning, and clarifies that being predetermined and lacking non-trivial freedom is considered a conclusion rather than assumption (as it suggested in the original phrasing). So yeah, basically the same... just different.

only with the irrelevancy that is confusing you the most bolded (determined by natural law is the key, predetermined adds nothing).

Well, I guess if you consider it irrelevant that something is a conclusion rather than an assumption, it certainly explains your inability to fathom the difference.

In particular, you have once again posted the conclusion you draw from your supernatural assumption - that determination by natural law excludes freedom of will - in the same language you have been using for many pages now.

But I haven't ever assumed that determination by natural law excludes freedom of will. That is the conclusion reached. None of the assumptions used are what you claim.

And despite my best efforts - quoting, explaining in detail, pointing directly at the bogus step in your "logic" - you don't appear to even be aware, yet, of using that assumption: you bolded an irrelevancy, and then threw in the major blunder as if it were unquestioned.

All you have ever done is take the conclusion and go "look, there's the assumption". If those are your best efforts then okay, those are your best efforts. And for you to think "and thus" is an irrelevancy... well, your best just isn't that good, is it.

Nonsense. I say no, based on reading your explanation of what you mean by "non-trivial".
When your use of "non-trivial" has been clarified to mean "supernatural",
...
Supernatural freedom does not exist.

Again you have it backward. Once we have concluded that non-trivial freedom does not exist, we can, if we are so inclined (although I am not), label it supernatural, but I prefer simply non-existent. You, however, seem to want to insist on seeing the conclusion as an assumption and starting from there. And thus arises your fallacious criticism.

Which clears the field for a discussion of freedom of will in the real, natural, world. If we can get you to think.

For those interested in trivial notions of freedom, sure, but you could have been discussing it from the outset. Thermostat on. Thermostat off. Freedom!

 

[Sarkus]

Well let me say this about you'r last few posts... i know what you mean cause ive been thar myself:::

When i was about 5 an slowly ridin my tricycle… i woud watch the right rear wheel an wonder what was makin it turn… it made sinse to me that the front wheel turned when i worked the peddles… but it realy puzzled me as to why the rear wheel woud also move… an i got the idea that if i took off the rear wheel that i woud find what made it turn… so i got a pair of adjustable pliers an went to work gettin that pressed-on nut off… an after many painful pinches to my hand from the pliers slippen off the nut… i finally got it off… an i was realy excited as i slowly pulled the rear wheel from the axial cause i knew that the answr woud be revealed… so sure… that i actually saw what it was… which was a dark translucid smoky-like substance which flowed from the axel downward onto the floor… an then it just disapeared… an i was just as puzzled as ever.!!!

Reminds me of how the iconograph (the equivalent of a camera) works in Terry Pratchett's discworld series... little imps sit inside the iconograph and quickly paint pictures.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Reminds me of how the iconograph (the equivalent of a camera) works in Terry Pratchett's discworld series... little imps sit inside the iconograph and quickly paint pictures.

At least he only did it once. Unlike you and iceaura doing the eqivalent hundreds of times
Never heard that f word?
Futility....?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Reminds me of how the iconograph (the equivalent of a camera) works in Terry Pratchett's discworld series... little imps sit inside the iconograph and quickly paint pictures.

My little imp painters was workin overtime at age 5... lol... but by at least age 8 i had learned to simply foller the facts for best results... unlike some adults who are so insecure/fragile that they cant even honestly discuss the notion of will not bein free in a deterministic universe

 

[Quantum Quack]

My little imp painters was workin overtime at age 5... lol... but by at least age 8 i had learned to simply foller the facts for best results... unlike some adults who are so insecure/fragile that they cant even honestly discuss the notion of will not bein free in a deterministic universe

Iceaura will be most upset by you asinine coments.

 

[Quantum Quack]

My little imp painters was workin overtime at age 5... lol... but by at least age 8 i had learned to simply foller the facts for best results... unlike some adults who are so insecure/fragile that they cant even honestly discuss the notion of will not bein free in a deterministic universe

Uh? Ok...try this one....

Maybe if you knew why you believe what you believe you would actually have something to discuss....

 

[Sarkus]

At least he only did it once.

Eh? At least who did what only once???

 

[iceaura]

I'm talking about non-trivial freedom, not the supernatural.

You have defined "non-trivial" as supernatural. Many times. Repeatedly. After having the problem with that definition pointed out to you explicitly. Recall: different outcomes from identical inputs. That's yours.

You have been saying numerous times that I am denying the capability. Now you seem to agree that I'm not denying it? Which is it?

Now that's dishonest. You had the word "imaginary" right in front of you, and the word "alternatives", and they were both key to my post.
To answer the question anyway: You have been consistently denying the existence of observed capabilities in entities about to decide among them.

is not an assumption but a conclusion.

No, you argue from it, not to it. It's how you get from "predetermined" to no genuine, actual, non-trivial, etc etc etc, freedom.

But I haven't ever assumed that determination by natural law excludes freedom of will.

Right. You assumed freedom of will had to be supernatural (different outcomes from identical inputs, violation of determination by natural law) and from that and predetermination by natural law you concluded it did not exist.
The odd thing is that it's the predetermination you don't need. Once you have the ability to defy natural law as your assumed criterion for actual, genuine, non-trivial, etc, freedom, you're done at a deterministic universe - you don't need the "pre" aspect at all.

Again you have it backward. Once we have concluded that non-trivial freedom does not exist, we can, if we are so inclined (although I am not), label it supernatural, but I prefer simply non-existent.

You've been doing the way I described, using different outputs from identical inputs, actual, genuine, non-trivial, and so forth - descriptions of supernatural action - to hide from the simple and accurate term otherwise readily available.
I sympathize with your predicament, since you seem to recognize the weakness
and - on a science forum - the irrelevance
of such an assumption, but you are making it. And it is crippling you.

For those interested in trivial notions of freedom, sure, but you could have been discussing it from the outset.

The several such attempts and invitations have failed. As predicted, long ago.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You have defined "non-trivial" as supernatural. Many times. Repeatedly. After having the problem with that definition pointed out to you explicitly. Recall: different outcomes from identical inputs. That's yours.

Now that's dishonest. You had the word "imaginary" right in front of you, and the word "alternatives", and they were both key to my post.
To answer the question anyway: You have been consistently denying the existence of observed capabilities in entities about to decide among them.

No, you argue from it, not to it. It's how you get from "predetermined" to no genuine, actual, non-trivial, etc etc etc, freedom.

Right. You assumed freedom of will had to be supernatural (different outcomes from identical inputs, violation of determination by natural law) and from that and predetermination by natural law you concluded it did not exist.
The odd thing is that it's the predetermination you don't need. Once you have the ability to defy natural law as your assumed criterion for actual, genuine, non-trivial, etc, freedom, you're done at a deterministic universe - you don't need the "pre" aspect at all.

You've been doing the way I described, using different outputs from identical inputs, actual, genuine, non-trivial, and so forth - descriptions of supernatural action - to hide from the simple and accurate term otherwise readily available.
I sympathize with your predicament, since you seem to recognize the weakness
and - on a science forum - the irrelevance
of such an assumption, but you are making it. And it is crippling you.

The several such attempts and invitations have failed. As predicted, long ago.

I just wonder how Sarkus can accommodate the empirical evidence of free will with out resorting to claiming that evidence to be of supernatural or paranormal nature?

 

[Sarkus]

You have defined "non-trivial" as supernatural. Many times. Repeatedly. After having the problem with that definition pointed out to you explicitly. Recall: different outcomes from identical inputs. That's yours.

I have not made any such definition such as "non-trivial" meaning supernatural. If you conclude that the definition is something that does not exist then feel free to conclude it to be supernatural.

Now that's dishonest. You had the word "imaginary" right in front of you, and the word "alternatives", and they were both key to my post.

You have consistently accused me of denying the capabilities. Those capabilities are the ability to imagine alternatives and to conclude from among them. You have claimed repeatedly that I have denied them. My comment was thus not dishonest.
And as if you make my point for me...

To answer the question anyway: You have been consistently denying the existence of observed capabilities in entities about to decide among them.

There you go again accusing me of denying those capabilities. I haven't. It is the nature of the freedom within those capabilities that is in question.

No, you argue from it, not to it. It's how you get from "predetermined" to no genuine, actual, non-trivial, etc etc etc, freedom.

And you continue with your misunderstanding. Being predetermined is a conclusion. Not an assumption. If any further conclusion flows from the universe being predetermined then they, too, are conclusions from the same assumption of a deterministic universe.

Right. You assumed freedom of will had to be supernatural (different outcomes from identical inputs, violation of determination by natural law)

No such assumption of the supernatural I'm afraid. If you want to equate the assumption to it being supernatural then that is because you are concluding that the freedom doesn't exist, and you are then applying that conclusion as if it is inherent within the assumption that was made.
That is no different than saying that, because we know all humans are mortal, the assumption that Socrates is human is to already assume that Socrates is mortal, thus the conclusion that Socrates is mortal is begging the question. You are doing the same here.

and from that and predetermination by natural law you concluded it did not exist.

Predetermination is a conclusion.

The odd thing is that it's the predetermination you don't need. Once you have the ability to defy natural law as your assumed criterion for actual, genuine, non-trivial, etc, freedom, you're done at a deterministic universe - you don't need the "pre" aspect at all.

Your misunderstanding between what is a conclusion and what is an assumption might well lead you to this conclusion of yours, but it doesn't apply to my position, as already explained.

You've been doing the way I described, using different outputs from identical inputs, actual, genuine, non-trivial, and so forth - descriptions of supernatural action - to hide from the simple and accurate term otherwise readily available.

There you go again assuming that Socrates is mortal to be an assumption.

I sympathize with your predicament, since you seem to recognize the weakness

The weakness of continuing to respond to someone who can't recognise the difference between assumption and conclusion?... Yep, a big weakness on my part.

and - on a science forum - the irrelevance
of such an assumption, but you are making it. And it is crippling you.

Ironic, that the only irrelevance is your criticism that stems from your misunderstanding.

The several such attempts and invitations have failed. As predicted, long ago.

So rather than move on to something else you want to discuss on these forums, or perhaps set up a thread specific to the discussion of the trivial freedom within our "free will", you continue responding here with your same misunderstanding.
And all you have is that same misunderstanding between conclusion and assumption, claiming that Socrates is mortal to be an assumption. All you're doing is quickly recognising within the assumptions that the notion of freedom doesn't exist, by going through the logic before needing to write it down. You are possibly doing so almost intuitively such that you think that the assumption must therefore be that the freedom is supernatural, without recognising it for the conclusion it is. But that's okay. It really should be simple to see that in a causally deterministic universe there is no ability to do other than one does, that there are no genuine alternatives (only imagined ones).
And then when you do try and bring up the trivial notions of freedom, all you can do is handwave to the difference in complexity between the human will and a thermostat as if that is explanation enough. No wonder no one is taking up your invitation.

 

[Sarkus]

I just wonder how Sarkus can accommodate the empirical evidence of free will with out resorting to claiming that evidence to be of supernatural or paranormal nature?

If you want to be part of the game, QQ, you best try to at least understand what game you're playing, rather than just throwing around words you've heard and trying (but failing) to form relevant sentences.
I can accommodate the empirical evidence of the activity of the process we call "free will" because it has never been disputed that such a process exists. The issue is the nature of the freedom involved within the process. Nothing supernatural about the evidence of the will as a process, nothing paranormal about that evidence either.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If you want to be part of the game, QQ, you best try to at least understand what game you're playing, rather than just throwing around words you've heard and trying (but failing) to form relevant sentences.
I can accommodate the empirical evidence of the activity of the process we call "free will" because it has never been disputed that such a process exists. The issue is the nature of the freedom involved within the process. Nothing supernatural about the evidence of the will as a process, nothing paranormal about that evidence either.

ok ok that's a no .... so empirical evidence is not relevant to you... fair enough...

ok can I ask you two very straight forwards question?

1. Why do you believe that only one possible outcome of an infinite number of alternative outcomes is predetermined?
2. If all possible choices are predetermined, how does that effect your exclusion of a person having freedom to choice between all possible predetermined choices?

I look forward to your response...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Q&A
Q:How many events at any given moment are predetermined?
A: Infinite.

Q: You believe that only one choice is predetermined?
A: Yes.

why? Why only one?

 

[TheFrogger]

By, "free-will" do you mean, "not being told what to do?"

"Oh no. If he didn't like it he wouldn't do it."-Mrs Rostenkowski, The Big Bang Theory.

 

[Sarkus]

ok ok that's a no .... so empirical evidence is not relevant to you... fair enough...

If that's what you got out of what I said... Empirical evidence of a non-trivial notion of freedom would be most relevant. Do you have any?

ok can I ask you two very straight forwards question?

1. Why do you believe that only one possible outcome of an infinite number of alternative outcomes is predetermined?
2. If all possible choices are predetermined, how does that effect your exclusion of a person having freedom to choice between all possible predetermined choices?

I look forward to your response...

Are we assuming in these questions that the universe is deterministic? I assume so, as you ask about things being predetermined, which requires a deterministic universe. But I don't want you crying foul and throwing your toys out of your pram if I do, so please confirm before I provide you with my answer?

 

[Quantum Quack]

If that's what you got out of what I said... Empirical evidence of a non-trivial notion of freedom would be most relevant. Do you have any?
Are we assuming in these questions that the universe is deterministic? I assume so, as you ask about things being predetermined, which requires a deterministic universe. But I don't want you crying foul and throwing your toys out of your pram if I do, so please confirm before I provide you with my answer?

of course...You are arguing that case are you not?

 

[Sarkus]

ok can I ask you two very straight forwards question?

1. Why do you believe that only one possible outcome of an infinite number of alternative outcomes is predetermined?
2. If all possible choices are predetermined, how does that effect your exclusion of a person having freedom to choice between all possible predetermined choices?

I look forward to your response...

1. Any event can only have a singular outcome. eg. if you roll a die the outcome can not be both a one and a six, for example. If the event is predetermined, as it would be in a deterministic universe, then that singular output must be predetermined.
With regard the process of choice that we go through, it is predetermined that we imagine what we consider to be possible alternatives. If you are asked to pick a number from 1 to 10 the options you consider are predetermined to be considered by you. Each option is an imagined alternative. The number you conclude on, the output, would have been predetermined, by the inputs to the system and the deterministic workings of the system. So once you have actualised the choice (e.g. You pick "2") it can be easily seen that the other imagined alternatives that you considered were only ever imagined alternatives, and never had any actual reality beyond that.

2. If all possible choices are predetermined then that includes any choice a human might make. The human will be predetermined to imagine the alternatives, and will be predetermined to weigh each up in the manner that they do, and predetermined to reach the conclusion/output that they do.
Every step, all the alternatives they imagine, the way they imagine them, the way they process the data, the way they make judgements, they way they conclude, and the conclusion/output they reach, all of it happens in a predetermined manner. Just like a thermostat in principle. A supremely complex thermostat, granted, but a thermostat nonetheless.

 

[Quantum Quack]

1. Any event can only have a singular outcome. eg. if you roll a die the outcome can not be both a one and a six, for example. If the event is predetermined, as it would be in a deterministic universe, then that singular output must be predetermined.
With regard the process of choice that we go through, it is predetermined that we imagine what we consider to be possible alternatives. If you are asked to pick a number from 1 to 10 the options you consider are predetermined to be considered by you. Each option is an imagined alternative. The number you conclude on, the output, would have been predetermined, by the inputs to the system and the deterministic workings of the system. So once you have actualised the choice (e.g. You pick "2") it can be easily seen that the other imagined alternatives that you considered were only ever imagined alternatives, and never had any actual reality beyond that.

Say I throw 10 die with a blind fold on and are asked to pick up one of them; is my choice predetermined?

Does it matter which die I pick as surely they are all predetermined?
Is the number I choose with a blindfold on predetermined or just the physical die?

2. If all possible choices are predetermined then that includes any choice a human might make. The human will be predetermined to imagine the alternatives, and will be predetermined to weigh each up in the manner that they do, and predetermined to reach the conclusion/output that they do.
Every step, all the alternatives they imagine, the way they imagine them, the way they process the data, the way they make judgements, they way they conclude, and the conclusion/output they reach, all of it happens in a predetermined manner. Just like a thermostat in principle. A supremely complex thermostat, granted, but a thermostat nonetheless.

so absolutely everything is predetermined hmmm...so really it doesn't matter does it, if the human freely choose which predetermination he wishes to co-determine?

 

[Sarkus]

Say I throw 10 die with a blind fold on and are asked to pick up one of them; is my choice predetermined?

Yes.

Does it matter which die I pick as surely they are all predetermined?

You'll pick up the die you were predetermined to pick up.

Is the number I choose with a blindfold on predetermined or just the physical die?

Everything is predetermined.

so absolutely everything is predetermined hmmm...

Yes.

so really it doesn't matter does it, if the human freely choose which predetermination he wishes to co-determine?

If absolutely everything is predetermined, that includes the human, it includes the options he imagines, it includes the option that will be selected, the way it was selected, the reasoning for selecting it. Everything. Absolutely everything.
The only freedom within that are trivial notions, such as the river running "freely" down stream, or the thermostat being free to switch on or off depending on what the inputs dictate.

And what exactly do you mean or envisage by "co-determination"? Either everything is deterministic, or not everything is. Are you suggesting the human is a non-deterministic element in an otherwise deterministic universe? If not that, what are you suggesting?