What is free will?

[Sarkus]

And yet we have a thermostat that has a will?

No, we don't. No more than a thermostat has the ability to autonomously drive a car.

I suppose it has a personalty and self awareness to go with it.

You could say that it has a personality, if one wishes to anthropomorphise. If it is slow to turn on but quick to turn off, or never quite turns on at the same temperature, or frequently breaks down, then yes, it could be said to have a personality.
Self-awareness, no.

What a joke!

Then present something to actually counter it, rather than merely appeal to emotion and consequence, or simply pointing at something and going "Ooh, look, that's evidence of free will! That proves free will!" or some such.

I am totally bewildered as to why you guys have dumbed down so much... seriously you guys are usually pretty smart but this thread is nuttso.....

Your personal incredulity is again noted, even if you are utterly confused about your own position, given that we're still discussing the realm of the deterministic universe in which you yourself have admitted there is no free will.

Arguing for pages comparing a human brain with a thermostat, not even knowing how a brain works.
Granting a thermostat of all things a will which immediately implies self-identity.

No one is granting the thermostat a will. One is merely comparing the freedom within the will as being of the same principle as the freedom exhibited by a thermostat. If you see that as granting will to a thermostat then your ability to comprehend is woeful, which may well excuse the confusion your posts tend to exhibit on this matter.

Suggesting by default that YOU do not exists except as an illusion...

There is no such suggestion. Any mention of illusion is reserved for those things that appear to run contrary to how the logic suggests they operate.

Not only illogical, poorly constructed and under researched but incredibly stupid.

It is none of those four things, but thanks for your enlightening critique. If you care to actually offer any alternative logic that shows the argument wrong, a better constructed argument, or research that offers examples of genuine rather than merely imagined alternatives and a non-trivial freedom, then maybe you'll be taken seriously in this conversation.
And yet I am still humoured by the fact that you also hold the position that free will does not exist in a deterministic universe. But such is your own confusion in the matter, and your apparent desire to simply increase your post count without any actual content, that you aren't even aware of which side of the in/compatibilist debate you're on.

So why are you guys so dumbed down?

If we have dumbed things down it is only so those we converse with who hold a confused position can keep up. Maybe we need to dumb it down even more for you?

 

[Quantum Quack]

No one is granting the thermostat a will. One is merely comparing the freedom within the will as being of the same principle as the freedom exhibited by a thermostat. If you see that as granting will to a thermostat then your ability to comprehend is woeful, which may well excuse the confusion your posts tend to exhibit on this matter.

yet you grant the thermostat the ability to have the illusion of choice?
How can you compare a thermostat which has no will with a human who has a will and declare you are discussing "free will"?
eh?
Stupid... why?
just to clarify my point so you can understand it...better...
You state that the thermostat has no will yet use it to compare it with a human being that has a will, using an un-willed thermostat as evidence to support your argument...
totally nonsensical.

What is worse is that the argument is about the will and you are using an object that has no will to support your case.
And I thought you were good with logic......

 

[Quantum Quack]

And yet I am still humoured by the fact that you also hold the position that free will does not exist in a deterministic universe.

again you repeat a fallacy.
I am glad you find your mistake funny...

When you are open to properly discuss the real deterministic universe the one that included living free-willed human beings rather than your fantasy one, let me know...

Oh ... whats that? You are confused.... what again.... please you just don't believe that the universe could actually be divided in to two forms of determinism, one of which included self determinism can you?
oh, that's right....your mind can only cope with a single deterministic reality...

"..every human being is a universe unto himself..." ~ anon ( many anon)

 

[Sarkus]

again you repeat a fallacy.

There is no fallacy in that. Your own words stand testament to that. You have claimed free will to not exist in the deterministic universe under consideration. You may label that as my deterministic universe, or the deterministic universe that I am discussing, but since a deterministic universe is a deterministic universe with regards whether it is deterministic or not, you have repeated numerous times, across a number of threads, that free will is not possible in a deterministic universe.
That you try now to backtrack, to claim otherwise, just shows the muddled thinking you employ, and the resultant garbage you post that we have to wade through.

When you are open to properly discuss the real deterministic universe the one that included living free-willed human beings rather than your fantasy one, let me know...

See, even here you show muddled thinking... "the real deterministic universe"? So you do think our actual universe is deterministic? So is it that you think the nature of the determinism within our universe (let's call it "real determinism") is different than the determinism within the assumed universe that I am discussing (let's call that "assumed determinism")?
So please clarify, Quantum Quack: do you think our actual universe is deterministic or non-deterministic? If deterministic, how does that determinism differ to what you think is the determinism of the assumed deterministic universe that I am otherwise considering?
Can you get unmuddled enough to provide an answer to those questions?

Oh ... whats that? You are confused.... what again.... please you just don't believe that the universe could actually be divided in to two forms of determinism, one of which included self determinism can you?
oh, that's right....your mind can only cope with a single deterministic reality...

Either the universe is deterministic or it is not. It is a binary proposition. There are no "two forms of determinism" with regard the nature of the universe, and your efforts to suggest otherwise is simple equivocation on your part.

 

[Sarkus]

yet you grant the thermostat the ability to have the illusion of choice?

No, that is not suggested in anything I have said. It merely has the same trivial notion of freedom in its outputs.

How can you compare a thermostat which has no will with a human who has a will and declare you are discussing "free will"?

Because we are not discussing the existence of the process pre se, but with whether that process can be deemd free. You'd realise this if you had been keeping up.

just to clarify my point so you can understand it...better...
You state that the thermostat has no will yet use it to compare it with a human being that has a will, using an un-willed thermostat as evidence to support your argument...
totally nonsensical.

I can understand why you might think it nonsensical because you seem incapable of following an argument. The argument isn't about the existence of the process, just the nature of the freedom that the process has, if any. Got that? Understand that? Just say if not, and I'll dumb it down even more for you.

What is worse is that the argument is about the will and you are using an object that has no will to support your case.
And I thought you were good with logic......

The argument is about the nature of the freedom within a process everyone agrees exists. But thanks for playing.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is no fallacy in that. Your own words stand testament to that. You have claimed free will to not exist in the deterministic universe under consideration. You may label that as my deterministic universe, or the deterministic universe that I am discussing, but since a deterministic universe is a deterministic universe with regards whether it is deterministic or not, you have repeated numerous times, across a number of threads, that free will is not possible in a deterministic universe.

lie #1

That you try now to backtrack, to claim otherwise, just shows the muddled thinking you employ, and the resultant garbage you post that we have to wade through.

lie #2

See, even here you show muddled thinking... "the real deterministic universe"? So you do think our actual universe is deterministic? So is it that you think the nature of the determinism within our universe (let's call it "real determinism") is different than the determinism within the assumed universe that I am discussing (let's call that "assumed determinism")?

contradicted yourself and proved your lies.
You can't even lie properly....

So please clarify, Quantum Quack: do you think our actual universe is deterministic or non-deterministic? If deterministic, how does that determinism differ to what you think is the determinism of the assumed deterministic universe that I am otherwise considering?

so you now agree I didn't state that freewill existed in your fantasy deterministic universe.
thus proving your lies even mores so

Can you get unmuddled enough to provide an answer to those questions?

Your arrogance is astonishing. Especially for someone who considers a thermostat to be an appropriate object to compare a living human being with.

Either the universe is deterministic or it is not. It is a binary proposition. There are no "two forms of determinism" with regard the nature of the universe, and your efforts to suggest otherwise is simple equivocation on your part.

A Universe that is not inclusive of observed and observable phenomena is not really a universe is it?

In a dualistic system you have determinism and you have self-determinism, a binary proposition where there are no third options.
life and death
Animated and non-animated
Organic and non-organic


Have you ever considered how the will and human life and death are directly related?
No probably not as you are stuck with your non-living thermostat.

btw if you lie again I will report you to the moderators....
note: lies - Sarkus post #425

 

[Sarkus]

lie #1

Post #170: "The logic is sound but the reality of such is missing." This is in reference to the logic of the argument being that free will (i.e. non-trivial freedom) does not exist in a deterministic universe - i.e. the position that I, and Baldeee, and others, hold. You claimed it was sound, thus you are agreeing not only that the argument is valid but that you consider the premises true.
Post #339: "In YOUR logical deterministic universe there is no freewill." i.e. in the deterministic universe. Whether one believes our universe is deterministic or not is irrelevant. Here, in this comment, you concur that in the deterministic universe under discussion, there is no freewill.
Need I go on?

lie #2

No, your thinking really is muddled, I think your posts really are garbage, and that I, and others, do (eventually) wade through them.

contradicted yourself and proved your lies.
You can't even lie properly....

Where have I contradicted myself? I'm merely asking you questions in an effort to help you unmuddle your thinking, or at least sufficiently enough that I and others can more easily understand you.

so you now agree I didn't state that freewill existed in your fantasy deterministic universe.

But you did, as I have clearly referenced above. But in case you missed it: post #339: "In YOUR logical deterministic universe there is no freewill."

thus proving your lies even mores so

More like proving your inconsistency and muddled thinking.

Your arrogance is astonishing. Especially for someone who considers a thermostat to be an appropriate object to compare a living human being with.

In the properties relevant to the argument they can be compared. Both follow a process. If you think that this means that I am comparing a thermostat to a living human being in all regards then it is again evidence of your muddled thinking.

A Universe that is not inclusive of observed and observable phenomena is not really a universe is it?

Relevance? Where has anyone suggested otherwise.

In a dualistic system you have determinism and you have self-determinism, a binary proposition where there are no third options.

If you consider self-determination to be non-deterministic then you must necessarily consider a universe with it to be non-deterministic. If the self-determination is itself deterministic then an otherwise deterministic universe with such self-determination must be deterministic. To think otherwise would be yet more muddled thinking.

life and death
Animated and non-animated
Organic and non-organic

I can quote binary propositions as well, but I'm sure you'll try to explain the relevance of these.

Have you ever considered how the will and human life and death are directly related?

Have you ever considered how the processes of a thermostat and whether the thermostat works or not are directly related?

No probably not as you are stuck with your non-living thermostat.

I'm sure you'll enlighten me as to the relevance.

btw if you lie again I will report you to the moderators....
note: lies - Sarkus post #425

To lie again I must have lied at least once before. So good luck with that.
You, on the other hand...

 

[iceaura]

That we could choose differently if the inputs had been different is trivial.

That we have capabilities and make choices is trivial, then. (That you are referring to future events as "inputs" in describing a current situation is to be overlooked).
Ok.

There has been nothing contradictory

Trivial, or nonexistent - can't be both.

Because the universe is predetermined, there is only one factual course of events...

That's confused. What time is it? Are we now including only "course of events" in our facts? Why are we talking about the universe - the driver is our system, remember?

They have capability, in that if the inputs to the system were different they would act differently.

That's a fact. Hold that thought.
Eventually, when the complexity of that situation rises to awareness, and the various things you have packaged as "inputs" and "the system" sort themselves out, it will come in handy for discussing the degrees of freedom involved in willful human decisionmaking.

So, if you want to finally start explaining how the system, the will, can have a non-trivial freedom,

As with all your demands for many pages and threads now: Already done, several times. Short version: extrapolation from the concept of degrees of freedom routinely employed in engineering and statistical analysis of physical situations.

Whatever argument you think I'm making here, I'm not making it.

You are. As with the supernatural assumption you keep making, and denying, and making again - you don't like what you see when I hold up the mirror, but you won't drop it.
You will continue to insist, for example, that you are considering "the driver" as "the system", while arguing that the future color of a traffic light the driver has not encountered yet determines the current nonexistence of the very capabilities that identify an entity as "the driver".

Have I missed anything?
Because all you have done here, and all you have ever done, is describe a trivial notion of freedom. Noone has disputed that that trivial notion exists within our processing, the same way that it exists within a thermostat.

You have disputed the existence of capabilities in the driver, including the very ones used to identify an entity as "the driver". You have labeled the observation of these capabilities "counterfactual".

That is in addition to labeling them "trivial", justifying the label on the grounds that as far as you can tell they are the same capabilities as found in a thermostat, differing only in complexity. (The differences in complexity, including logical level, between a human being and a thermostat, you regard - by assumption - as "trivial".)

Then you return to declaring them all nonexistent and/or imaginary - on the grounds that in the future of the universe only one can be employed.

And all that we are supposed to take seriously.

 

[Sarkus]

That we have capabilities and make choices is trivial, then.

No, the freedom within that process is trivial.

(That you are referring to future events as "inputs" in describing a current situation is to be overlooked).

I am not referring to future events as "inputs" to the current situation. The current situation may have imagined future events as inputs, but not actual future events.

Trivial, or nonexistent - can't be both.

With regard freewill it is the non-trivial freedom that is non-existent. The trivial freedom exists. That hasn't been disputed. If one defines freewill as something that has a freedom that I am referring to as non-trivial, then I would say that that particular definition of free will is non-existent.

That's confused. What time is it? Are we now including only "course of events" in our facts? Why are we talking about the universe - the driver is our system, remember?

Because I am explaining to you what it means for something to be counterfactual.

That's a fact. Hold that thought.
Eventually, when the complexity of that situation rises to awareness, and the various things you have packaged as "inputs" and "the system" sort themselves out, it will come in handy for discussing the degrees of freedom involved in willful human decisionmaking.

Yes, in the trivial sense of "freedom". Feel free to discuss that with those that wish to discuss it.

As with all your demands for many pages and threads now: Already done, several times. Short version: extrapolation from the concept of degrees of freedom routinely employed in engineering and statistical analysis of physical situations.

So you can't offer it, then, 'cos all you're doing here is explaining the trivial notion, and trying to cover your inability to go further with "extrapolation from...". Sort out that extrapolation, and actually explain how it is more than the non-trivial notion you are otherwise describing. Please?

You are. As with the supernatural assumption you keep making, and denying, and making again - you don't like what you see when I hold up the mirror, but you won't drop it.

Your counters, your disagreements, your issues with the compatibilist position, and with the argument presented here by me, by Baldeee, by Capracus, have all been dealt with, with consistent and clear explanations by each of us.

You will continue to insist, for example, that you are considering "the driver" as "the system", while arguing that the future color of a traffic light the driver has not encountered yet determines the current nonexistence of the very capabilities that identify an entity as "the driver".

You'll have to clarify what you are trying to say here, as I'm struggling with recognising your complaint as having any relation to what I've been saying.

You have disputed the existence of capabilities in the driver, including the very ones used to identify an entity as "the driver". You have labeled the observation of these capabilities "counterfactual".

No, I have labelled the alternatives that the driver imagines as counterfactual, except at best one of them, which might well be factual. The capability of imagining these counterfactual alternatives is part of the system. I have never said otherwise.

That is in addition to labeling them "trivial", justifying the label on the grounds that as far as you can tell they are the same capabilities as found in a thermostat, differing only in complexity.

No, I am not labelling the differences in capabilities as trivial, but rather saying that the notion of "freedom" you are identifying and espousing within the more complex system is trivial because it is the same in principle as that found in the less complex.

(The differences in complexity, including logical level, between a human being and a thermostat, you regard - by assumption - as "trivial".)

Other than your confusion and misunderstanding as to what I am considering trivial, you again seem to misunderstand what "assumption" means. If you had said "by implication" then at least you would be making some sense.

Then you return to declaring them all nonexistent and/or imaginary - on the grounds that in the future of the universe only one can be employed.

What exactly do you think I am declaring non-existent, and what do you think I am declaring imaginary, because you are conflating several matters here?

And all that we are supposed to take seriously.

You can take it as seriously as your own understanding will allow, I guess.

 

[iceaura]

No, the freedom within that process is trivial.

So we do, the driver does, as observed, have capabilities and make choices. Genuine, actual, non-imaginary, capabilities from among which the driver will choose.
Finally.
Baby steps.

No, I am not labelling the differences in capabilities as trivial, but rather saying that the notion of "freedom" you are identifying and espousing within the more complex system is trivial because it is the same in principle as that found in the less complex

And when you say that, for the twentieth time, I point out, for the twentieth time, that you are not paying attention to physical reality.
The same "in principle", the differences being "only" complexity? Child - - - the world is not the billiard ball terrarium you have assumed, when you find yourself forced to look to the supernatural for any possibility of freedom.

If you had said "by implication" then at least you would be making some sense.

You consistently assume, as a premise, that only the supernatural can be free. It's right there, in your repeated "different output from the same input" reasoning for example, and I have quoted it often enough for one lifetime.

Your counters, your disagreements, your issues with the compatibilist position, and with the argument presented here by me, by Baldeee, by Capracus, have all been dealt with, with consistent and clear explanations by each of us.

They aren't consistent (you can't even settle on the "system" you want to deal with - universe, driver, future, past), and they certainly aren't clear (what "principle" are you talking about, that makes trivial the degrees of freedom possessed by the complex and simple alike?)

What exactly do you think I am declaring non-existent, and what do you think I am declaring imaginary,

The simple declarative sentence in English, right in front of you as you typed that question, was this:

You have disputed the existence of capabilities in the driver, including the very ones used to identify an entity as "the driver". You have labeled the observation of these capabilities "counterfactual".

 

[Quantum Quack]

If you consider self-determination to be non-deterministic then you must necessarily consider a universe with it to be non-deterministic. If the self-determination is itself deterministic then an otherwise deterministic universe with such self-determination must be deterministic. To think otherwise would be yet more muddled thinking.

you see... now that wasn't so hard was it?
So self determination could indeed be part of a deterministic universe...just not a part of your version.

well done...
the word "will" in itself, implies determinism.
"I will.....
"I am determined to..."

Do you think your version of a deterministic universe is the only version possible?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Have you ever considered how the processes of a thermostat and whether the thermostat works or not are directly related?

or that the thermostats process were designed and created by a self determining human being... have you ever considered that?

 

[Sarkus]

So we do, the driver does, as observed, have capabilities and make choices. Genuine, actual, non-imaginary, capabilities from among which the driver will choose.
Finally.
Baby steps.

No-one has disputed the capability of arriving at an outcome from a given input. A thermostat achieves as much. If you see that as baby steps then it would seem to be in your understanding of our position. Yes, choices are made, wIthaca the same freedom of a thermostat. But the driver chooses from imaginary alternatives.

And when you say that, for the twentieth time, I point out, for the twentieth time, that you are not paying attention to physical reality.

And I will happily tell you for the twenty-first time that I am paying attention to physical reality, a reality that is, as assumed, deterministic, predetermined, and lacking non-trivial freedom. But you singularly fail to provide any indication as to what physical reality I am not paying attention to when I say that you are merely referring to a non-trivial notion of freedom, other than to appeal to evidence and arguments that merely refer to that non-trivial notion of freedom. I.e. you are offering nothing that actually counters what I say, instead you just reaffirm it.

The same "in principle", the differences being "only" complexity? Child - - - the world is not the billiard ball terrarium you have assumed, when you find yourself forced to look to the supernatural for any possibility of freedom.

I'm not forced to look to the supernatural. I'm quite happy to conclude that the freedom I'm interested in, the non-trivial kind, doesn't exist. The supernatural has no place in my consideration. Unlike the supernatural-obsessed opponents I'm having to deal with.
If one starts with the assumption that the will is free, and the only freedom one can conclude exists is the trivial kind, then they are actually supporting my position even if they don't recognise it. And all you have offered is argument for, and allusions to evidence of, the trivial notion of freedom.

You consistently assume, as a premise, that only the supernatural can be free.

So you keep fallacious asserting. Yaaaawn.

It's right there, in your repeated "different output from the same input" reasoning for example, and I have quoted it often enough for one lifetime.

Then you similarly deem Socrates to be mortal as an assumption.

They aren't consistent (you can't even settle on the "system" you want to deal with - universe, driver, future, past), and they certainly aren't clear (what "principle" are you talking about, that makes trivial the degrees of freedom possessed by the complex and simple alike?)

So now you're simply blaming me for your inability to understand and keep track of what is being said. Okay. Then I think we're done. You seem incapable of understanding so I'm not going to waste my time further. I‘ve been consistent throughout, and you are now seeming to be deliberate in your misunderstanding.

The simple declarative sentence in English, right in front of you as you typed that question, was this:

Your misunderstanding. I have labelled the alternatives as counterfactual, not the capability of imagining them.

But heck, we're done. There's only so long I can talk to a wall before accepting it has nothing to say.

 

[Quantum Quack]

To lie again I must have lied at least once before. So good luck with that.

Do you honestly think that you and I are the only ones reading this thread.
Do you think I am the only one studying human psychology and nature?
if you do your even more deluded than I thought....

 

[Quantum Quack]

And I will happily tell you for the twenty-first time that I am paying attention to physical reality, a reality that is, as assumed, deterministic, predetermined, and lacking non-trivial freedom.

and there in demonstrates your dis-ingeniousness. see bolded.
"as assumed"
Deliberately generating a cross purpose argument.

 

[Sarkus]

you see... now that wasn't so hard was it?
So self determination could indeed be part of a deterministic universe...just not a part of your version.

Is your misunderstanding deliberate?
Answer me this: do you think self-determinaction is deterministic or non-deterministic?

well done...
the word "will" in itself, implies determinism.
"I will.....
"I am determined to..."

If you intend to equivocate the philosophical meaning of term with the term as used in casual parlance then you'll struggle in a philosophy forum. We're discussing the philosophical notion of determinism, not simply the notion of "being determined to do something" etc.

Do you think your version of a deterministic universe is the only version possible?

Just as one can pick from between an infinite array of even numbers, they all share the characteristic of being divisible by 2.
Either a universe is deterministic or it isn't. It's a binary proposition.

 

[Sarkus]

and there in demonstrates your dis-ingeniousness. see bolded.
"as assumed"
Deliberately generating a cross purpose argument.

FFS! The discussion between iceaura and me (and others) assumes a deterministic universe. If yon want to interject into that conversation then you have to accept the assumptions both sides are working to.
I get that you don't want to discuss a deterministic universe, but the actual universe, even though you can't bring yourself to clarify what you think our universe actually is in that regard, and with you I will (reluctantly) discuss the real universe once you have clarified the questions I have asked.
So no, it is not me creating issue here, QQ, but you in failing to understand the assumptions that other conversations are working from.
To clarify for you: iceaura is a compatibilist, he holds that free will exists in a non trivial sense in a deterministic universe. I am an incompatibilist. My discussion with him assumes a priori that we are talking about a deterministic universe.
So, politely, get with the program or stfu.

 

[Sarkus]

Do you honestly think that you and I are the only ones reading this thread.

No.

Do you think I am the only one studying human psychology and nature?

Couldn't give a rat's arse what you're studying. If you post crap you post crap.

if you do your even more deluded than I thought....

WTF does what you or anyone else are studying, if you are, have to do with what you post? You can study what ever you like, but it won't affect whether I have lied or not. And it doesn't seem to affect whether you post crap or not.

So feel free to report me for lying, if that is what you honestly think. Press that button. To quote that great method actor A. Schwarzenegger: "Do it. DO IT NOW!"

 

[Sarkus]

or that the thermostats process were designed and created by a self determining human being... have you ever considered that?

Who designed the processes in question is irrelevant. If you think it important then take it to its logical conclusion in the religion forum about intelligent design, as that is what you are suggesting.
Otherwise, for the discussion on freewill, it is sufficient for the thermostat to be simply an example of a process.
But no doubt, with your insatiable desire to talk more crap, you'll kick up a fuss and try to claim that it is of great significance, while either never actually offering an explanation as to why it is significant, or providing an explanation that is laughable at best.
But, as ever, I look forward to being proven wrong.
What? Too nasty for you?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Is your misunderstanding deliberate?
Answer me this: do you think self-determinaction is deterministic or non-deterministic?

self deterministic vs deterministic....hmmmm yep... self-determination is indeed self deterministic....therefore readily has a place in a deterministic universe.

Is English your native tongue?

If you intend to equivocate the philosophical meaning of term with the term as used in casual parlance then you'll struggle in a philosophy forum. We're discussing the philosophical notion of determinism, not simply the notion of "being determined to do something" etc.

Perhap in a philosophical forum you may seek to understand what exactly you are discussing.... You can not even describe what a will is let alone "determine" whether it is an illusion or not...

It is nothing to be proud of Sarkus, to be arguing a case in such ignorance.

Just as one can pick from between an infinite array of even numbers, they all share the characteristic of being divisible by 2.
Either a universe is deterministic or it isn't. It's a binary proposition.

it is deterministic over all... do you dispute this?

Humans are also self deterministic.

Does being self deterministic invalidate the overall determinism you are obsessed with?

Given your profound inability to use logic honestly with out lying to yourself and others I seriously wonder how you will probably answer yes to my question.

You seem to constantly come up with the same repetitive BS which could lead a reader to believe you actually are having enormous trouble in understanding what you are actually writing.

But you know exactly what you are writing and attempting to achieve... don't you?