Free Will

[henry quirk]

You damn well know I wasn't talkin' about careers & classifications.

[henry quirk]

We are by nature, greedy creatures in which life of short duration demands an afterlife of eternity...above or below!

I didn't bring all that nonsense up: why did you?

[Flannel Jesus]

Well, that's an argumentum ad populum anyway

It's not an argument that compatibilism is correct, it's merely an argument that your use of "reasonable" should be understood by readers as localised to you in particular,...

That's a bad argument. "Reasonable" means, "amenable to reason." It does not, in this case, mean "conforming to some particular reasons I happen to like," but rather "vulnerable to the impartial requirements of logic or sound argumentation." As such, it's universal.

Compatibilism does not make any reasonable sense, regardless of who one is.

I accept that to you, compatibilism isn't reasonable, while to the majority of professional or academic philosophers it is.

Of course you think your reasoning is universally sound - almost everyone is convinced their reasoning is correct and people who disagree are reasoning incorrectly. If you didn't think your reasoning was correct, you wouldn't call it "your reasoning" for long. It's still nevertheless your reasoning, and your standard for "reasonable" is clearly distinct from the standard of most academic philosophers. That doesn't mean you're incorrect, again, it just gives some context for the word "reasonable" there.

There are other contexts where someone might say "any reasonable definition of x has such and such property", and it would be true that that standard of reasonable is the standard of the person saying it, as well as the majority of relevant experts. This just doesn't happen to be one of those contexts.

[henry quirk]

Back to it...

I don't believe in free will. I don't believe in a soul.

...so we're meat.

Them's the options, folks...

-person (a free will; a mind, soul, and body; a moral being)

...or....

-meat

There ain't no middie ground, no compatibilistic fence to sit on.

It's one or the other.

[Fairy]

if the brain controls the body, what controls the brain?

who writes the program that the brain follows?

why isn't every brain programmed the same?

-Imp

Who is asking these brain questions?

a will that believes it is free

-Imp

That’s one description. But who and what describes?

[Harbal]

Well, it seems to me there really is only one "reasonable" definition of free will. We can't possibly think it means, "The ability to do anything one can ever imagine," or something equally absurd, can we? Philosophically, it doesn't even involve the denial that SOME things are caused strictly by physical causes -- how could one ever deny that? Sufficient for any reasonable definition of free will is that under SOME conditions, SOMETIMES people make choices that are not strictly caused by physical preconditions, but rather by something like volition.

Well I can think of several ways of interpreting the term, and I don't even know much about the subject, other than what occurs to me. And there is the matter of the degree of free will we might have; I think it simplistic to see it as an all or nothing situation.

And yet it is. Because although conceptions of free will can allow for physical causality, the same is not at all true of Determinisms. They absolutely require NO element of free will be actually involved AT ALL. Even one admitted countercase would defeat Determinisms.

Determinism, which I assume is a sort of strict physical cause and effect principle, is one possibility, but I don't see why some element of randomness could not be incorporated within it. There is still much we have to learn about physics, particularly at the quantum level; he said, as if he knew what the quantum level was.

And then there is human psychology; there is still much to learn about that. It could well be that the decisions we think we are consciously making have already been made subconsciously, and our impression of having freely made them is just an illusion. Why discount any of the possibilities when we simply do not yet have the knowledge to establish the matter one way or the other?

[Harbal]

Back to it...

I don't believe in free will. I don't believe in a soul.

...so we're meat.

Them's the options, folks...

-person (a free will; a mind, soul, and body; a moral being)

...or....

-meat

There ain't no middie ground, no compatibilistic fence to sit on.

It's one or the other.

You obviously have an imagination, henry, but you only seem to be able to imagine one thing with it.

[Impenitent]

Who is asking these brain questions?

a will that believes it is free

-Imp

That’s one description. But who and what describes?

I describe

besides, if there is no free will, there can be no moral or self responsibility...

"I will choose freewill..."

-Imp

[Dubious]

We are by nature, greedy creatures in which life of short duration demands an afterlife of eternity...above or below!

I didn't bring all that nonsense up: why did you?

I answered your question and supplied a reason when the PLUS side goes too far. If you don't like it, being something of an IC follower, it ain't my fault. It only goes to show stupidity is catching.

[bahman]

I don't believe in free will. The brain is like a computer, it has hardware, software, and an operating system. Like a CPU, the brain processes information and input. How we respond to that input depends on the build of the brain and our experiences. Without the physical component, such as the brain, then there is no functionality, which is why I don't believe in a soul. However, there is residual energy left over when we die. Brain activity continues after death for a limited time. I find that interesting, even hair and nails still grow for a duration.

I believe that life can be preserved upon death by providing electrical stimulation to the brain and maintaining blood flow to the brain and body parts, much like a cyborg.

Back to free will though. A person who experiences trauma often responds to input differently than a person without trauma. The trauma is an experience or more. Other experiences can have similar effects, both positive and negative.

Have you ever had doubts? If yes how could you decide in such a situation if you are not free? How could you explain the existence of doubt in a deterministic system, the brain for example?

[Fairy]

a will that believes it is free

-Imp

That’s one description. But who and what describes?

I describe

besides, if there is no free will, there can be no moral or self responsibility...

"I will choose freewill..."

-Imp

“if the brain controls the body, what controls the brain?”

The answer is I

No question is necessary, if I is the answer to all brain questions.

I then must be the one question to all I’s answers.

[Dubious]

Back to it...

I don't believe in free will. I don't believe in a soul.

...so we're meat.

Them's the options, folks...

-person (a free will; a mind, soul, and body; a moral being)

...or....

-meat

There ain't no middie ground, no compatibilistic fence to sit on.

It's one or the other.

There is no, "Them's the options, folks..."

The way you describe it is only the way you see it. There obviously is a middle ground. Humans of all types at too complex not to have one...except for theists. All they need is a Holy Book

[Fairy]

Question is: are we just meat or are we meat plus?

You know you are meat as you can conceive yourself as such.

You do not know of any plus. . if you did, you wouldn’t need to ask the question. You’d already know the answer, and have no requirement for the question.

So who or what is the plus question directed at exactly, is there some other source of knowledge available that you can tap into that can answer what you don’t know, and what or where would this other source of knowledge exist exactly, from where would this other knowledge source get it’s knowledge from exactly?

[Immanuel Can]

It's not an argument that compatibilism is correct, it's merely an argument that your use of "reasonable" should be understood by readers as localised to you in particular,...

That's a bad argument. "Reasonable" means, "amenable to reason." It does not, in this case, mean "conforming to some particular reasons I happen to like," but rather "vulnerable to the impartial requirements of logic or sound argumentation." As such, it's universal.

Compatibilism does not make any reasonable sense, regardless of who one is.

I accept that to you, compatibilism isn't reasonable, while to the majority of professional or academic philosophers it is.

It’s not “to me.” Anybody who can use reason can see it’s not coherent. It makes the old mistake of conflating epistemology with ontology.

Of course you think your reasoning

Not “my reasoning.” I don’t own logic. Anybody who can think can arrive at the same.

[Immanuel Can]

Well I can think of several ways of interpreting the term, and I don't even know much about the subject, other than what occurs to me. And there is the matter of the degree of free will we might have; I think it simplistic to see it as an all or nothing situation.

And yet it is. Because although conceptions of free will can allow for physical causality, the same is not at all true of Determinisms. They absolutely require NO element of free will be actually involved AT ALL. Even one admitted countercase would defeat Determinisms.

Determinism, which I assume is a sort of strict physical cause and effect principle, is one possibility, but I don't see why some element of randomness could not be incorporated within it. There is still much we have to learn about physics, particularly at the quantum level; he said, as if he knew what the quantum level was.

Problem: “Randomness” doesn’t fix anything. Would you rather be predetermined by physical causality, or predetermined by things that “just happen for no cause or reason,” randomly? How is the second any better…or ultimately, any more allowing of free will, than the first? We’re all just pawns either way: in the first case, to iron laws, and in the second, to a throw of the dice. But nobody gets to make an actual choice in either case.

And then there is human psychology; there is still much to learn about that. It could well be that the decisions we think we are consciously making have already been made subconsciously, and our impression of having freely made them is just an illusion.

That’s what Compatibilism tries to say. It tries to say, “Well, yeah, we’re all actually predetermined, but since we’re ignorant of that fact, maybe we get free will back.” Obviously, though, that doesn’t work. Whether or not we KNOW we are predetermined would be a totally different question from whether we ARE predetermined. And if they affirm the latter, then all it’ means is that we are ignorant of the truth of determination…not that determination is less true, or that we somehow become free by being ignorant.