What is Free Will?

[gasgod]

In a previous thread, I asked somebody to provide me with a non-circular definition of Free Will. Nobody obliged, perhaps because nobody read that post. So, I hereby repeat the challenge.

OK, let's suppose that I am a chessplayer with the white pieces. I know little about the English opening, so my choice is basically between e4 and d4. It seems to me that if you believe there is such a thing as Free Will, you must suppose that there is an entity known as "me" that can cause whatever firing pattern of neurons that will result in my picking up the e-pawn or d-pawn.

Now, if by Free Will you mean that the choice cannot be predicted because the initial conditions are too complex to analyze, then you have made a thoroughly trivial definition of Free Will. I don't think that this is what is meant by proponents of Free Will.

I think that Free Will proponents generally hold that my soul/mind/ego/spirit (take your pick) can make an unfettered choice regardless of the current pattern of neural firings in my brain.

However, it cannot be denied that my choice can be heavily influenced by the presence of various chemicals in my blood stream. Indeed, there are chemicals that render me unable to make any choice whatsoever. This leaves proponents of Free Will in the position of trying to explain how alcohol (to pick one chemical) can affect the manner in which my soul/mind/ego/spirit functions.

So, how can Free Will be defended?

GG

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


Now, if by Free Will you mean that the choice cannot be predicted because the initial conditions are too complex to analyze, then you have made a thoroughly trivial definition of Free Will. I don't think that this is what is meant by proponents of Free Will.

I think that Free Will proponents generally hold that my soul/mind/ego/spirit (take your pick) can make an unfettered choice regardless of the current pattern of neural firings in my brain.

However, it cannot be denied that my choice can be heavily influenced by the presence of various chemicals in my blood stream. Indeed, there are chemicals that render me unable to make any choice whatsoever. This leaves proponents of Free Will in the position of trying to explain how alcohol (to pick one chemical) can affect the manner in which my soul/mind/ego/spirit functions.

So, how can Free Will be defended?



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe it can. I believe you are right on the money with this post.

[Little Fishy]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that if you believe there is such a thing as Free Will, you must suppose that there is an entity known as "me" that can cause whatever firing pattern of neurons that will result in my picking up the e-pawn or d-pawn.


[/ QUOTE ]

what if i consider that entity "me" to include those neurons to fire and tell your hand what to do? Free will exists from our current perpective, however it does not exist as anything but reducible complexity from the perspective of the future...

for instance in this current moment I am choosing what to type, however once i choose what to type i already made that choice and that choice was decided by "me". me encompassing all the events and experiences I've had as well as my pysical and metaphysical being. looking back on what I just typed I no longer poses the freedom to change what my choice had been. when confined within the context of continuous foreward moving time, free will only exists in those choices that have not yet been made... free will is something of the future not of the past.

does that work... it's just a stream of thoughts.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that if you believe there is such a thing as Free Will, you must suppose that there is an entity known as "me" that can cause whatever firing pattern of neurons that will result in my picking up the e-pawn or d-pawn.


[/ QUOTE ]

what if i consider that entity "me" to include those neurons to fire and tell your hand what to do? Free will exists from our current perpective, however it does not exist as anything but reducible complexity from the perspective of the future...

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's what "me" is (neurons firing) then it seems to me that Free Will has bitten the dust. My decisions are the product of biochemistry, nothing more. How can this view support Free Will? Or are you perhaps agreeing that it doesn't?

GG

[Little Fishy]

i'm saying that free will only exists in the grey area of what we don't understand... actualy i'm not sure if that was what i was saying but it sounds good so let's roll with it...

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm saying that free will only exists in the grey area of what we don't understand... actualy i'm not sure if that was what i was saying but it sounds good so let's roll with it...

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that if Free Will is a grey area, then Christianity, and most of organized religion is dubious.

GG

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


It seems to me that if Free Will is a grey area, then Christianity, and most of organized religion is dubious.



[/ QUOTE ]

I claim that Free Will does not exist and yet Christianity is true. (in fact, Christianity provides for why free will cannot, and does not exist)

These claims that I say are clear in the Bible (and can give proofs for) were espoused by Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and nowadays are supported by what people call Calvinists (an unfortunate term of a Biblical doctrine named after an individual).

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


It seems to me that if Free Will is a grey area, then Christianity, and most of organized religion is dubious.



[/ QUOTE ]

I claim that Free Will does not exist and yet Christianity is true. (in fact, Christianity provides for why free will cannot, and does not exist)

These claims that I say are clear in the Bible (and can give proofs for) were espoused by Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and nowadays are supported by what people call Calvinists (an unfortunate term of a Biblical doctrine named after an individual).

[/ QUOTE ]

If Christianity is true, yet Free Will false (or meaningless), how can one be saved? Is it just the luck of the draw? I find your outlook puzzling.

GG

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]

for instance in this current moment I am choosing what to type, however once i choose what to type i already made that choice and that choice was decided by "me". me encompassing all the events and experiences I've had as well as my pysical and metaphysical being. looking back on what I just typed I no longer poses the freedom to change what my choice had been. when confined within the context of continuous foreward moving time, free will only exists in those choices that have not yet been made... free will is something of the future not of the past.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are assuming that there is a past, a present, and a future. You are assuming there is a concept of time and that it moves. You are assuming you are actually making a decision. These may be very dubious assumptions.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]



It seems to me that if Free Will is a grey area, then Christianity, and most of organized religion is dubious.



[/ QUOTE ]



I claim that Free Will does not exist and yet Christianity is true. (in fact, Christianity provides for why free will cannot, and does not exist)

These claims that I say are clear in the Bible (and can give proofs for) were espoused by Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and nowadays are supported by what people call Calvinists (an unfortunate term of a Biblical doctrine named after an individual).



[/ QUOTE ]

If Christianity is true, yet Free Will false (or meaningless), how can one be saved? Is it just the luck of the draw? I find your outlook puzzling.

GG


[/ QUOTE ]

(btw has anyone figured a good mechanism for quoting quotes? I'm kind of annoyed that I need to keep typing in the "quote" things)

Calvinism (or, as some people prefer to call it: the Doctrines of Grace) is usually summed up in 5 points, which all fall under the heading of divine soveignty, aka God is in complete control of everything.

1) Total Depravity: Because of Adam's original sin (and ultimately because God decreed that history would play out this way) we are born with Adam's sin (and guilt) upon our heads. Because of that, we do not naturally seek God, and without His intervention we cannot seek God.

2) Unconditional Election: God chooses who is to go to heaven, as in who he will call, from before the begining of the world (and before anything has happened). Heaven is for those that God has foreordained to it and not for anything we do (or can do)

3) Limited Atonement: Christ has come to die for those God has choosen and His death on the cross is complete and wipes away the guilt and debt of sin that the elect owe to God (this of course means that those that Christ did not die for are still dead in their sins and forordained for destruction)

4) Irresistable Grace: Those that God has choosen for Heaven He has irresistably drawn towards Him. His calling cannot fail so those that He calls will come to Him and come to a saving knowledge of faith in Christ.

5) Perseverance of Saints: Since those that God has choosen are choosen without conditions (before the begining of the time) and God's calling and workings are irresistable and Christ's death is complete, true believers have an assurance of salvation that comes from a saving knowledge of Christ.

What this means for me as a Christian is that I have a firm belief that God is working all things for His Glory and nothing happens apart from His Will. It is a complete denial of "free will" in the sense that no one is free from God's purpose and design.

With regards to why I was choosen for heaven (and not hitler) the short and biblical answer is that it was for God's glory and of no reason of my own. I freely acknowledge that I am undeserving of His mercy and grace. Nothing I have done could possibly have earned what He has freely given me.

(btw, am I using choosen right? or is it chosen? I can never get those two figured out)

A good explanation of this (with proofs) is found in the Canons of Dordt.

[gasgod]

How can you speak of sin on the one hand, and yet deny the existence of Free Will? These two notions seem incompatible to me.

GG

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


How can you speak of sin on the one hand, and yet deny the existence of Free Will? These to notions seem incompatible to me.

GG



[/ QUOTE ]

The concept you bring up is human responsibility which is biblical. Scripture teaches that God has the power and knowledge to hold us responsible for our actions. Free will does not come into play at all.

If no one was going to judge and punish you for your actions but somehow (I don't know how) these actions were free from outside influences, you would have free will but not human responsibility. Human responsibility does not require free will in any shape or form.

Sin is merely going against God's "rules" of which the first was "don't eat that fruit." Just because He has complete control over whether or not they eat that fruit doesn't mean he's not going to hold them responsible for doing what they are doing.

[OrianasDaad]

Free will is defended by those who ask "why".

[David Sklansky]

You guys are all confused. People can be proved to have free will by the reduction to absurdity argument. Assume there is no free will for humans. That means the future can be predicted by a super intelligent entity. But if he tells you his prediction you can choose to disobey it. You have free will. Ants don't.

Put another way, anyone who wonders if they have free will, does.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
But if he tells you his prediction you can choose to disobey it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your "prediction" lost its integrity when it was fed back into the system it was trying to analyze. In addition, your definition does not meet the OP's request for non-circularity.

Scott

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
So, how can Free Will be defended?

[/ QUOTE ]


I think this issue is a confusion of levels.

‘Free will’ is a human term. It refers to the effect that we appear to be able to choose certain aspects of our future.

Whether the universe and therefore a human’s future is deterministic does not invalidate the use of the term ‘Free Will’ when applied at the level of human experience.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
That means the future can be predicted by a super intelligent entity. But if he tells you his prediction you can choose to disobey it

[/ QUOTE ]

I think to resort to omniscient entitles that can exactly predict the future, is a straw man argument. Reality is complete, models of it aren’t.

To know what was always destined to happen, you have to wait like everyone else.

[Larimani]

This is a brilliant post OP. Thanks for bringing this up, it's a fascinating question.

First, let's not mix the religion and free will question. I mean, they are closely related, but talking about religion will just make things more complicated. Let's argue the more simple notion of free will and whether such a notion exists.

1) I agree with OP. Decisions by 'me' are the result of neurons firing in your brain. These neurons follow the laws of Biochemistry and therefore your cognition can be reduced to these laws (which right now are not completely understood). Advances in cognitive neuroscience have shown that the dualist perception of the mind can be rejected, and that mind and brain are essentially the same thing.

2) David's argument is logically incorrect. As noted by another poster, by feeding back some information into the situation you're trying to analyse, you are changing the assumptions of the situation.

3) For those who do not understand what I'm trying to convey, I will give an example. Let's say that we take your brain and study every single neuron in it. We then create an electronic version of it where every single neuron is simulated or replicated. The question is: is this electronic brain going to behave any differently than you? is it going to be conscious? will it have free will?

I believe the anwers are : No. Yes. No.
No, because behavior and cognition are solely based on the underlaying neurons that govern them.
Yes, because consciousness is a result of neural function (read a couple of cognitive neuroscience textbooks if you don't believe that)
No, because this electronic brain is solely governed by its structure and the laws governing it.


PS: I realise this may be a very naive point of view... & that's why am opened to criticism

[purnell]

If you haven't read this (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/) yet it might give you some insight. As far as I can tell, "free will" is not provable, or, by making certain assumptions, one can prove both determinism and free will, making the whole thing moot. The concept really doesn't mean anything at all when you get right down to it.

[Larimani]

A good read on that subject: Wikipedia: Free will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will)

[David Sklansky]

3) For those who do not understand what I'm trying to convey, I will give an example. Let's say that we take your brain and study every single neuron in it. We then create an electronic version of it where every single neuron is simulated or replicated. The question is: is this electronic brain going to behave any differently than you?

Yep. Quantum Theory

[Larimani]

Quantum theory advocates randomness of some events. Are you implying that some neurophysiological events occuring in the brain are random? If you are, then you are implying that behaviour and cognition is not deterministic. However, that does not imply free will! I merely implies that you cannot predict behavior or cognition because there is a random element to it.

Do you see why?

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


You guys are all confused. People can be proved to have free will by the reduction to absurdity argument. Assume there is no free will for humans. That means the future can be predicted by a super intelligent entity. But if he tells you his prediction you can choose to disobey it. You have free will. Ants don't.

Put another way, anyone who wonders if they have free will, does.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring the fact that you didn't answer the question, which I think was an excellent one that proponents of free will (to me) have never been able to answer.

Let me get this straight.

1)Assume you don't have free will

2)This means some superintelligent entity can predict what you're going to do

3)You can now choose to disobey that prediction

4)Contradiction!

If you're assuming that you don't have free will, how can you have a choice in step 3? All you're stating is:

assume you don't have free will. But you do have free will! Contradiction!

reduction to absurdity indeed.

Wouldn't it be far more accurate to say:

1) Assume you don't have free will
2) A super intelligent entity knows exactly what you're going to do, and tells you this
3) Because he's figured you out perfectly, you end up doing exactly what he says

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
3) For those who do not understand what I'm trying to convey, I will give an example. Let's say that we take your brain and study every single neuron in it. We then create an electronic version of it where every single neuron is simulated or replicated. The question is: is this electronic brain going to behave any differently than you?

Yep. Quantum Theory

[/ QUOTE ]

As larimani has pointed out, the fact that your actions cannot be predicted does not establish Free Will. If it did, an atom of plutonium would have Free Will.

The argument you employed earlier:

"You guys are all confused. People can be proved to have free will by the reduction to absurdity argument. Assume there is no free will for humans. That means the future can be predicted by a super intelligent entity. But if he tells you his prediction you can choose to disobey it. "

has been debunked many times. Basically, if the super intelligent entity is part of the system he/she/it is analyzing, then the results of disclosing that analysis must be accurately predicted. The entity must completely analyze and predict its own behaviour in order to predict our reaction to that behaviour. But this obviously contradicts the notion that either of us has Free Will.

GG

[Little Fishy]

decent read

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
If you haven't read this (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/) yet it might give you some insight. As far as I can tell, "free will" is not provable, or, by making certain assumptions, one can prove both determinism and free will, making the whole thing moot. The concept really doesn't mean anything at all when you get right down to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, your last sentence gets it exactly. It is significant that no poster has even attempted to offer a definition.

GG

[Bodhi]

I majored in philosophy as an undergrad, and believe me, I spent a lot of sleepless nights over these issues. Eventually I came to the position that our every-day language need not be consistent with physics or neuro-science. It would be plainly stupid for a scientist to come up with experiments to find out "which part of the brain creates free will." What's more, some notion of voluntary action is necessary if you want to say that people do things and are not just inanimate objects getting moved around by other forces.

rationality is necessary for agency.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
What's more, some notion of voluntary action is necessary if you want to say that people do things and are not just inanimate objects getting moved around by other forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

My translation: Free Will is true because I want it to be true.

Or did you mean something else?

GG

[obsidian]

I'm pretty sure I read this in a book (Ender's game series I think), but the question of free will is really one of those questions that is meaningless to answer. Whether our decisions and actions are the result of an extremely complex chain of events that appears to be free will, or we actually do have free will doesn't matter. Human life simply cannot go on unless the illusion of free will exists.

I also don't understand how Christianity and the lack of free will can co-exist. Christianity depends on free will to explain the existence of evil. However, I think claiming God is both omniscient and infallible directly contradicts free will. If someone or something is able to 100% accurately predict what you will do (and absolutely cannot be wrong), you do not have free will.

[Larimani]

You are completly right. An undeniable proof of the abscence of free will would be very bad for humanity.

[Little Fishy]

[ QUOTE ]
I read this in a book (Ender's game series I think),

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting that we're getting our philosophy from SciFi books.

I agree however. the notion of free will is necessary in order for any society to function. free will is a necessary underlying theme in order to punish crimes justly.

[Bodhi]

No, that's not what I mean.

What I mean is that a sentence like "John walks to the store," would be meaningless if there were no such thing as voluntary action. You couldn't even interpret these words as linguistically meaningfull without it.

...and as I said before, requiring correspondence between everyday language and science is misguided, maybe even a fallacy. Remember that our scientific theories are meant to explain everyday experience, not do away with it. The theory that says the table is not really solid does not mean to make you think it is rotten and will break apart under your weight.

[Bodhi]

But I don't think such a proof is possible. Science cannot proove anything about ethics, and free-will is an ethical notion if ever there was one.

[Bodhi]

The super intelligent entity has already predicted your choosing to disobey. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

I also don't understand how Christianity and the lack of free will can co-exist. Christianity depends on free will to explain the existence of evil. However, I think claiming God is both omniscient and infallible directly contradicts free will. If someone or something is able to 100% accurately predict what you will do (and absolutely cannot be wrong), you do not have free will.


[/ QUOTE ]

Talk to any Calvinist who firmly believes in divine soveignty (aka a denial of free will). We all affirm that Christianity and a lack of free will coexist, in fact that Christianity necessarily implies a lack of free will.

The problem of evil is not a problem at all for us and I would love to discuss this (maybe in another thread if you prefer or through email).

I do agree that omniscence and infallibility of God are contradictory to our interpretations of 'free will" (which still hasn't been defined) and that is why I reject "free will" and affirm divine soveignty.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
You are assuming that there is a past, a present, and a future. You are assuming there is a concept of time and that it moves.

[/ QUOTE ]


I got the "look" that made me feel most like an alien being ever the time I said, "I think the concept of time is an illusion" to a complete stranger at a poker table. It was worth at least a pound of gold.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

No, that's not what I mean.

What I mean is that a sentence like "John walks to the store," would be meaningless if there were no such thing as voluntary action. You couldn't even interpret these words as linguistically meaningfull without it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Does the sentence require that John have free will in order to have any meaning? What about the sentence, "The red ball bounced up and down."

No one would say that the red ball has free will.

Or do you mean that we need to have free will in order to understand the sentence?

I'm confused as to what you mean.

[Bodhi]

When you say "the red ball bounced up and down," I must assume a number of things for your sentence to be meaningfull:

1. That you believe a red ball bounced up and down
2. That you intend your utterance of the sentence to make me believe it
3. The vast majority of your beliefs about the world are true, i.e. the same as mine.

Without #2, your utterance of the sentence would just be noise.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
In a previous thread, I asked somebody to provide me with a non-circular definition of Free Will. Nobody obliged, perhaps because nobody read that post. So, I hereby repeat the challenge.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are right that most people who talk about free will on message boards aren't able to come up with a satisfying definition of it. Most people use 'free will' to mean 'not predetermined, but not random, either.' Which is a nonsense concept. Predetermined means non-random. Random means not predetermined. There is no third category.

For my part, I think setting free will up in opposition to determinism is a mistake. Free will can exist perfectly well in a deterministic universe.

I would apply the concept of "free will" not to persons, but to their actions. In other words, I would not say "Sally has free will," but rather, "Sally ate that cookie of her own free will."

Moreover, I would say that an act is freely chosen if it is caused by the actor's desire to do it. If I kick Sally because something hit my knee and my leg straighted as a reflex, I did not kick her of my own free will. But if I kick her because she said something bad about Mason Malmuth, that's free will in action.

Notice that for my kicking of sally to be *caused* by my desire to kick her, a deterministic cause-and-effect linkage is required. So free will is not in opposition to determinism, but rather depends on it. To the extent our universe is partially deterministic and partially random, it's the deterministic part that allows free will to exist.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a previous thread, I asked somebody to provide me with a non-circular definition of Free Will. Nobody obliged, perhaps because nobody read that post. So, I hereby repeat the challenge.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are right that most people who talk about free will on message boards aren't able to come up with a satisfying definition of it. Most people use 'free will' to mean 'not predetermined, but not random, either.' Which is a nonsense concept. Predetermined means non-random. Random means not predetermined. There is no third category.

For my part, I think setting free will up in opposition to determinism is a mistake. Free will can exist perfectly well in a deterministic universe.

I would apply the concept of "free will" not to persons, but to their actions. In other words, I would not say "Sally has free will," but rather, "Sally ate that cookie of her own free will."

Moreover, I would say that an act is freely chosen if it is caused by the actor's desire to do it. If I kick Sally because something hit my knee and my leg straighted as a reflex, I did not kick her of my own free will. But if I kick her because she said something bad about Mason Malmuth, that's free will in action.

Notice that for my kicking of sally to be *caused* by my desire to kick her, a deterministic cause-and-effect linkage is required. So free will is not in opposition to determinism, but rather depends on it. To the extent our universe is partially deterministic and partially random, it's the deterministic part that allows free will to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is meant as a definition of Free Will, I think it falls short of the goal. Essentially, you are saying that if you perform an action that you intended to perform, then you have done it of your own Free Will. But this doesn't even address the question of how you made that decision. All you have said is: "Let's all agree that when action springs from intention, we will call this an example of Free Will."

I think you need to address the decision to act in order to define Free Will (in the sense that most people use the term).

BTW, I completely agree with all those who say that the notion of Free Will is an important one to uphold even though we might realize that it is an illusion. For example, punishing a naughty child is not done with the concept of justice in mind; it is done to train the child to act in a certain way. If we must instil in the child a belief in Free Will to accomplish that goal, that's fine.

GG

[Bodhi]

I don't think you would gain any knowledge by providing a definition of "free will."

It may very well be the case that the best we can do is to give examples of when and how we use the term.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you would gain any knowledge by providing a definition of "free will."

It may very well be the case that the best we can do is to give examples of when and how we use the term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we gain knowledge if we realize that it cannot be defined. I believe the term belongs in the same class as "beauty". It is a completely subjective phenomenon that has no objective validity. I think knowing this is valuable.

GG

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, we gain knowledge if we realize that it cannot be defined.

[/ QUOTE ]
You'll have to excuse my possibly perverse perspective here, but I'm a mathematician. And from my perspective, anything can be defined. If I want, I can define "free will" to be the collection of all functions f from the complex plane to the set of 2-by-2 real matrices such that for all z, f(z+i) is the transpose of f(z).

So when you say "it cannot be defined," do you mean that we cannot find a definition which matches the way most people normally use the expression?

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, we gain knowledge if we realize that it cannot be defined.

[/ QUOTE ]
You'll have to excuse my possibly perverse perspective here, but I'm a mathematician. And from my perspective, anything can be defined. If I want, I can define "free will" to be the collection of all functions f from the complex plane to the set of 2-by-2 real matrices such that for all z, f(z+i) is the transpose of f(z).

So when you say "it cannot be defined," do you mean that we cannot find a definition which matches the way most people normally use the expression?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Actually, it's not a definitional problem in the mathematical sense. I guess "define" as I use the word in this thread means "explain what is meant by"

GG

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

When you say "the red ball bounced up and down," I must assume a number of things for your sentence to be meaningfull:

1. That you believe a red ball bounced up and down
2. That you intend your utterance of the sentence to make me believe it
3. The vast majority of your beliefs about the world are true, i.e. the same as mine.

Without #2, your utterance of the sentence would just be noise.


[/ QUOTE ]

Setting aside the problems with 1 and 3 (since the point of the discussion is 2):

Yes, I agree that I need an intention in order that my words make sense, but does having this intention necessarily require "free will"?

But first, we need to define what is meant by "free will" in order for any of this talk to even make sense. and now we've moved the topic back to the OP's intention

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a previous thread, I asked somebody to provide me with a non-circular definition of Free Will. Nobody obliged, perhaps because nobody read that post. So, I hereby repeat the challenge.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are right that most people who talk about free will on message boards aren't able to come up with a satisfying definition of it. Most people use 'free will' to mean 'not predetermined, but not random, either.' Which is a nonsense concept. Predetermined means non-random. Random means not predetermined. There is no third category.

For my part, I think setting free will up in opposition to determinism is a mistake. Free will can exist perfectly well in a deterministic universe.

I would apply the concept of "free will" not to persons, but to their actions. In other words, I would not say "Sally has free will," but rather, "Sally ate that cookie of her own free will."

Moreover, I would say that an act is freely chosen if it is caused by the actor's desire to do it. If I kick Sally because something hit my knee and my leg straighted as a reflex, I did not kick her of my own free will. But if I kick her because she said something bad about Mason Malmuth, that's free will in action.

Notice that for my kicking of sally to be *caused* by my desire to kick her, a deterministic cause-and-effect linkage is required. So free will is not in opposition to determinism, but rather depends on it. To the extent our universe is partially deterministic and partially random, it's the deterministic part that allows free will to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is meant as a definition of Free Will, I think it falls short of the goal. Essentially, you are saying that if you perform an action that you intended to perform, then you have done it of your own Free Will. But this doesn't even address the question of how you made that decision.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why should it address that question if that's not part of the definition?

[ QUOTE ]
All you have said is: "Let's all agree that when action springs from intention, we will call this an example of Free Will."

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. That's what 'free will' means.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to address the decision to act in order to define Free Will (in the sense that most people use the term).

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean. Address it how? You want an explanation of what happens in the brain when someone decides to act -- which neurons fire, which areas of the brain are oxygenated, etc.? I don't see how that would advance the discussion of free will, so maybe you mean something else?

FWIW, I suspect that the quantum (indeterministic) effects involved in the functioning of the brain are probably inconsequential. Which is to say that effects are determined by causes non-randomly. So the answer to the question, Could I have refrained from kicking Sally?, is: Sure, if I'd wanted to. But the fact is that my brain was configured such that I wanted to, and from there my kicking her was inevitable. Cause-and-effect all the way! But that doesn't eliminate free will -- it enables free will.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I agree that I need an intention in order that my words make sense, but does having this intention necessarily require "free will"?

But first, we need to define what is meant by "free will" in order for any of this talk to even make sense. and now we've moved the topic back to the OP's intention

[/ QUOTE ]

Does intention require free will? Certainly. I don't see how we could say you intend to do something if you don't have a say in it.

I don't agree that you need a definition of "free will." Why do you suppose this is so?

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree that I need an intention in order that my words make sense, but does having this intention necessarily require "free will"?

But first, we need to define what is meant by "free will" in order for any of this talk to even make sense. and now we've moved the topic back to the OP's intention


[/ QUOTE ]


Does intention require free will? Certainly. I don't see how we could say you intend to do something if you don't have a say in it.

I don't agree that you need a definition of "free will." Why do you suppose this is so?


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe because it's impossible to have dialoge on anything without agreeing (in a very general sense) of what that something is.

If I believed that a 4 sided regular polygon was a square and you believed it was a circle and I pointed out that all squares are rectangles, you would say no, all circles are rectagles. We would be stuck without going back to defining what exactly a square, circle, and rectangle is.

I'm saying that we need to do that with free will. We need to figure out what is free will and what it is not. And if our definitions disagree, we need to move a step further back and figure out what a definition is.

As such, since no one has yet given a definition of free will in this thread that is non-circular as requested by the OP, any discussion on if we have free will or not must await a definition.

[Bodhi]

Isn't it funny, then, that we don't define out terms when we have a conversation? How do we know that we're using the words the same way?

[reubenf]

I choose to believe I have free will. Therefore, I have free will.

[Shakezula]

IMO: theoretically, the number of possible responses to any given situation can be infinite. Practically speaking, in daily life, the choices become limited, having to do with time-constraints, personal preferences, external influences, alcohol within the blood stream that is affecting the neurological pathways, or the inability to perceive all the options. Free will then is not really operable, because of such limitations. It still exists, only it has been narrowed and refined according to individual purposes.

The proposed model of an entity having awareness of all future activity, is a stale and unfulfilling idea. There is no room for further creativity from the individual. Expansion, from the individual nor the universe, is not possible in such a state of perfection, because it is closed, final, finished, and complete. That is a dead-end, IMO.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


Isn't it funny, then, that we don't define out terms when we have a conversation? How do we know that we're using the words the same way?


[/ QUOTE ]

because usually our definitions agree to a large extent we are able to communicate and convey our ideas and dialogue in a meaningful manner, however , when we both have a disagreement over what exactly a term means, it is required to define (and agree upon what we're discussing) the terms relevant. I feel the term "free will" is one of those terms since neither of us has put forth a plausible definition of free will.

For me personally, I define "free will" as being free from God's soveign control, and thus I reject it completely and affirm that God is in indirect as well as direct control of everything. If you disagree with that we can come up with a definition that we both agree on and work from there, but until then meaningful discussion about the term "free will" is severely hindered.