Free will, freedom from what?

[attofishpi]

-- let me tell you all about GOD (where gaps need filling) ---

I'm still waiting for you to explain how entropy determines an end to the universe.

[Flannel Jesus]

You shouldn't. There's nothing about being the pawn of random factors that is any better than being the pawn of factors we know. In both cases, we would just be pawns, still in what Weber called, "the iron cage" of predetermination. The only thing that would have changed is the name of our "jailor." But we would be no more free.

You don't seem to know what we're talking about, because all of what you just said isn't it. Neither phyllo nor I, in those quotes you quoted, are speaking a word about what's better about anything.

I'm not speaking of what's "better" either. You'll look in vain for that word above.

I will?

"You shouldn't. There's nothing about being the pawn of random factors that is any better"

[Immanuel Can]

The point is that IC's concept of randomness is based on "lack of information".

Speaking of "lack of information," why don't you answer my question?

What's your "scientific" definition of "random"?

I prefer the link I provided rather than a definition...

I understand why. Because if you actually look for definitions, you'll find that the common definition is as I suggested, and that the scientific definition has to do with probability calculations. And then you'll discover that there are many scientists, such as (Ramsey, Motzkin, or Calude, for example) who insist that randomness is literally impossible. So again, you'll find that the perception that randomness exists is an expression of human confusion concerning the multiple real factors that produce a given outcome, rather than some real property. And you'll find a ton of expert opinion from mathematicians and scientists that back that.

But if you didn't even want to look, then why not? What did you already suspect you were going to find?

[Immanuel Can]

You don't seem to know what we're talking about, because all of what you just said isn't it. Neither phyllo nor I, in those quotes you quoted, are speaking a word about what's better about anything.

I'm not speaking of what's "better" either. You'll look in vain for that word above.

I will?

"You shouldn't. There's nothing about being the pawn of random factors that is any better"

Ah, I see. Yes, I apologize. I did use that word. Well, that was poorly chosen. I'll revise, if I may.

There's nothing about being the pawn of random factors that opens up any space for freedom (whether we consider freedom "better" or not). Personally, I would consider freedom "better" than being a slave, of course, but you're right -- I shouldn't have assumed everybody would necessarily feel the same.

[Immanuel Can]

-- let me tell you all about GOD (where gaps need filling) ---

I'm still waiting for you to explain how entropy determines an end to the universe.

If the energy in the universe is declining from a state of higher order to a state of lower order (which it is, through entropy or what we call the second law of thermodynamics) then we can not only measure the rate of decline and calculate the slope to zero (which scientists call "heat death"), but even if we got our calculations wrong by a billion times, it would still mean the universe was not future-eternal, assuming things continue as they are.

Maybe that helps.

[Flannel Jesus]

There's nothing about being the pawn of random factors that opens up any space for freedom (whether we consider freedom "better" or not).

I agree with that. (in fact it's one of the driving reasons why i'm a compatibilist - but you don't care about reasons why, so that's enough about that)

Just to clarify, what we were talking about wasn't about what's better, or what's preferrable, or what opens up space for freedom - we were talking about what the word "random" means.

You were focussed on what I might call "apparent randomness" - things that appear random because all of the causal factors are not necessarily obvious or observable. That is, of course, a way the word "random" can be used, but it's not usually what people are talking about when the question of physics or free will are on the table. For those things, if people are talking about randomness they're usually going to be talking about *genuine* randomness.

Apparent randomness is unpredictable because of a lack of information. Genuine randomness is unpredictable in principle, even if you had all the information you could possibly have. Apparent randomness is irrelevant because it's trivially the case that apparent randomness surrounds us all the time. Of course various things have apparent randomness. That's not worth too many breaths talking about in discussions of physics or free will, imo.

[phyllo]

Because if you actually look for definitions, you'll find that the common definition is as I suggested, and that the scientific definition has to do with probability calculations. And then you'll discover that there are many scientists, such as (Ramsey, Motzkin, or Calude, for example) who insist that randomness is literally impossible. So again, you'll find that the perception that randomness exists is an expression of human confusion concerning the multiple real factors that produce a given outcome, rather than some real property. And you'll find a ton of expert opinion from mathematicians and scientists that back that.

I covered that in an IF statement.

And I would prefer to stay on the thread topic of free-will and determinism, rather than hash out definitions of randomness.

[phyllo]

Since animals display both intent and fear, then they must be more than matter ... yet you refer to animals as meat machines.

I think most, mebbe all, of what we see when it comes to animal displays of fear, intent, etc. is our anthropomorphizing them. We see what isn't there.

But, I certainly hold to the possibility there are non-human persons.

Well, animals show intent in hunting, gathering, building shelter.

And it would be pretty strange if they did not have fear, since it's so useful for self-preservation.

So maybe you are choosing not to see what is there.

[henry quirk]

I think it's natural for us, as persons, to attribute personhood, or qualities of personhood, to all kinds of things. When, for example, we note apparent fear in a cat we say it's afraid when actually it's just instinctual reaction.

But, as I say, it's possible there are non-human persons. Protozoans? No. Cetaceans? Perhaps.

[phyllo]

When, for example, we note apparent fear in a cat we say it's afraid when actually it's just instinctual reaction.

That's an odd distinction.

Are you saying that humans only have non-instinctual fears? And humans don't have instincts, including a fear instinct?

And why is it "just instinctual reaction" as if it wouldn't be called fear unless there is some sort of intellectual processing involved.

[Flannel Jesus]

It appears like he's just making new facts up about animals. I doubt he got that from anybody who specializes in animal behaviour or cognition.

[henry quirk]

Are you saying that humans only have non-instinctual fears? And humans don't have instincts, including a fear instinct?

No. Persons, as I say, are unions of body and soul, co-equal. Of course, we have appetites and impulses and instincts. But we have, and are, sumthin' more. In context: a person sez or thinks (though not necessarily in a formal way) I'm hungry, I'm sad, I'm...

His eye turns inward becuz he is an I.

And why is it "just instinctual reaction" as if it wouldn't be called fear unless there is some sort of intellectual processing involved.

Seems to me: fear -- a very unpleasant or disturbing feeling caused by the presence or imminence of danger -- pertains to persons alone. A person has an very unpleasant or disturbing feeling caused by the presence or imminence of danger to himself, to someone he loves or empathizes with, or to someone or something he values. He's conscious of himself or of the premium he place on the other. A cat, startled by a loud noise, has no capacity to self-reflect or self-reference. It's basically nuthin' but appetite, impulse, and instinct. It's eye is always turned outward becuz it's not an I.

And yes, processing occurs. Since I refer to non-persons as meat machines and bio-automata I'll go with that descriptor. Yes animals process information and stimulations. But it's as a computer or a Roomba does. The Roomba is programmed to avoid edges, like the steps of stairs, but there's no self, no mind, no I, no soul, there. It avoids becuz it has to, not becuz it fears pain or injury.

[henry quirk]

I doubt he got that from anybody who specializes in animal behaviour or cognition.

Let's have 'em, then: the facts from a specialist in animal behavior or cognition.

[Flannel Jesus]

I doubt he got that from anybody who specializes in animal behaviour or cognition.

Let's have 'em, then: the facts from a specialist in animal behavior or cognition.

I don't know what you mean lmao. Do you think one of those is here?

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/art ... 861/233998

[Immanuel Can]

There's nothing about being the pawn of random factors that opens up any space for freedom (whether we consider freedom "better" or not).

I agree with that. (in fact it's one of the driving reasons why i'm a compatibilist - but you don't care about reasons why, so that's enough about that)

Actually, I most certainly DO care about the reasons why. I've been asking for the reasons why. It's the first thing I'd like to hear from a Compatibilist: why do you think it's even plausible to be a Compatibilist? So anything you have to say on that subject will be most eagerly received.

Just to clarify, what we were talking about wasn't about what's better, or what's preferrable, or what opens up space for freedom - we were talking about what the word "random" means.

Yes, but germaine to the topic of the thread -- which means, the subject here is how "randomness" would issue in any kind of rationale for "freedom."

You were focussed on what I might call "apparent randomness" - things that appear random because all of the causal factors are not necessarily obvious or observable. That is, of course, a way the word "random" can be used, but it's not usually what people are talking about when the question of physics or free will are on the table.

Show that, then, please: give the alternate understanding of "randomness" you think they really mean. For in the dictionaries, both common (as you mention above) and scientific (as I pointed out to Phyllo) there is no alternate definition available. So I'll happily consider yours.

For those things, if people are talking about randomness they're usually going to be talking about *genuine* randomness.

Mathematicians, three of whom I cited to Phyllo, insist that any actual "randomness" is impossible. Can you explain why you think they're wrong? What would "genuine" randomness be?

Apparent randomness is unpredictable because of a lack of information. Genuine randomness is unpredictable in principle, even if you had all the information you could possibly have.

If that's the distinction, then it's only one of degree...both epistemological, and neither actual. That is, in both cases, you're referring to the metric of human "prediction" and "unprediction." It's unimportant how many factors human beings can or cannot tabulate. If something were "genuinely random," then it would be utterly chaotic...totally devoid of any governing principles, natural laws, relevant contributors, causes or forces...Otherwise, it's IN PRINCIPLE not random, only humanly, ostensibly random. In other words, not really random at all, unless by "random" you only mean "incalculable by anything we know or could know, or that could ever exist."

In which case, how would you even be able know such a thing existed? Where would be the example of an actually random event?

Besides, Determinists -- of which Compatiblists are a subset -- are already committed to the claim that NOTHING is not, at least in principle and eventually, explicable in terms of ordinary scientific principles such as cause-and-effect or other material interactions. That's the whole point of Determinism: to say that everything has a purely material origin.

That's not worth too many breaths talking about in discussions of physics or free will, imo.

None at all, really.

But don't believe me. Believe this guy, instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4arOKZvuZK4 (Don't worry; it's very short and easy.)