Neapolitan

Still a person have the choice to read or not to read, just because most of it is done automatically by the physical body (eyes, & brain) doesn't mean one is mindless. Do you believe you are mindless?

__________________

John Wilkes Booth

i don't think the lack of free will as i described it it equals mindlessless. i just think what the mind does isn't necessarily under our direct conscious control.

Chula Vista

Free Will. The power and ability to act out without being held back, or caring about the consequences.

We all have it. We've all used it.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

The Batlord

Robots have the same. But, you're working with another definition of free will than I am. Yours is merely the lack of a metaphorical gun to my head, preventing me from doing what I want to do. Mine is the actual mental capacity to be able to make decisions free from ANY constraints, but they physical, mental, or metaphysical.

According to your definition, the lack of a gun to your head constitutes having free will, but in mine, the gun is unnecessary, because I am no more capable of making unconstrained decisions with or without the gun due to absolute mathematical predictability.

I don't know how aware you are of it, but there's a whole philosophical thing about "compatibilism"---which you seem to subscribe to---and "incompatibilism"---which I would agree with, and both of their definitions of free will are dependent on "determinism". Here's some Wikipedia help, that's at least vaguely helpful...

Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A nebulous definition, but it basically means what I was talking about where mathematics determines everything that happens in the universe: from how a pool ball will rebound of the side of the table, to how a person will respond to coming home to find his wife in bed with the neighbor, to how a nation will respond in a crisis such as a natural disaster or war, to how the culture of an entire race will evolve over millions or billions of years, right down to the length of every step each individual member of that race will make for all of eternity.

Incompatibilists believe that the concept of free will and determinism are... well, incompatible.

Free will: Incompatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incompatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Compatibilism is the philosophy that determinism and free will are... ya know, compatible. But they define free will differently than incompatibilists. There's generally a metaphysical (magical) component to free will for "us", as I've already explained with all my talk of mathematical calculations and randomness being necessary for the existence of free will. Compatibilists basically describe free will as you do, in that it's basically just being able to act without that gun to your head. The legal definition of free will basically, and probably what most people see as free will, even if they're not aware of the philosophical debate. (One of my fav debates as well, mostly because it's actually a rather simple concept which I'm comfortable in my position toward.)

Compatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free will: Compatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Basically, both sides are correct. It's just seems that they don't accept each other's definitions of free will. Without some kind of magic to give people "true" free will, the incompatibilist sees the concept as useless, whereas compatibilists see the incompatibilist definition to be impossible to define and therefore also useless.

I define myself as an incompatibilist simply because society at large seems to accept compatibilism in ignorance while still subscribing to the metaphysical definition of free will in a way that would make no sense if they really thought about the subject from a secular point of view. And since this popular definition of free will (the incompatibilist definition) is the one that is accepted by the majority of at least the Western world, I will accept that definition and base my arguments around it.

There's other stuff tied into both philosophies, but I'm not all that up on the details, and this post is probably already kind of TL;DR. I tried to make it as coherent as possible, but I'm long-winded and prone to being disorganized. Hopefully I wasn't too confusing. If so, someone smarter than me please explain what I just said in a more clear manner.

__________________

Chula Vista

Mine is from Merriam Webster

Free will - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. It's really very simple.

Today, I have the free will to do whatever the hell I want. Would some options physically hurt me or others, or get me in trouble with the law, or damage relationships? Of course. I still have the free will to do them.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

The Batlord

Those are vague enough that they could support either of our definitions, and the second actually sounds like it supports MINE. If you don't want to think much beyond the casual definition of free will that's fine, but if you're going to respond to arguments like mine or JWB or Xurtio, then you should put a little more thought into what you're actually arguing then you seem to be, as your logic comes across as lazy.

__________________

EPOCH6

Illusion. "Choice" is a funny word, I think the primary force keeping the free will debate alive is foggy semantics.

We makes choices, sure, but we will only make the choices we've been conditioned to make, choices our biology will allow us to make, choices that our environment and experience have encouraged us to make. The brain is a learning and problem solving machine. We're born and we begin testing the world, we touch hot surfaces, stick our tongues on cold poles, touch the stove burner, talk back to our parents, wipe out on our skateboards, play video games, watch movies, lie to people, make poor financial decisions, smoke weird drugs, break speed limits, and gauge everybody's reaction to everything we do. All of that incoming data, filtered through our biology, determines how we act, our temperament, our restraint, our cleverness, our inclination to take risks, our intuition, our taste in music, film, and culture, and whatever else we consider typical human behavior and thoughts.

Any time we are presented with a choice to make (AKA every living second), our brain remembers past results, considers the current situation and the possible outcomes, does some weird math, and makes an informed decision that may or may not be a good one. Every single choice we make can be traced back to a series of events that informed us to act this way, or how to answer a certain question.

It feels like we're making choices, and we are, but the choices aren't decided by "we", our whole biological system makes the choice, we don't control our bodies like a mech pilot. Our mind is shaped by the experience of our body and will only behave in ways that the body has taught it, and the body is taught by the rest of the systems surrounding us. Every body is reacting to everything else, and everything else is reacting to everything else. I had chicken noodle soup for breakfast this morning because the dinosaurs suffered a mass extinction. The dinosaurs suffered a mass extinction because the Earth formed in this particular corner of the galaxy. The galaxy formed over here because some **** happened over there.

__________________

Xurtio

I agree with Batlord, you're equivocating. There's nothing to be gained by arguing semantics. Accept the definition we've used and base your discussion on it (particularly since it's the default definition in this well-known, global philosophical discussion).

__________________
H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉

Chula Vista

No, you guys need to put less thought into it.

FREE. WILL.

It's pretty f*cking simple.

Bat, you're not willing to dive deep into Citizen Kane yet you're taking this straight forward concept and heaping layers of psychobabble on top of it?

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

The Batlord

When talking about the possibility that you're basically a biological machine with no control over your actions, then it's not really all that simple. The difference between the common/compatibilist concept of free will, and the metaphysical/incompatibiliist definition can shape how we view consciousness and the human brain. Why stick to comfortable vagueness, when accepting it closes the door to greater scientific understanding about the most basic and profound aspect of how the human brain functions.

First of all, just because I don't want to rewatch some movie I find to be boring doesn't mean I'm not interested in intellectual discussion. Enjoying Citizen Kane is not some litmus test for intelligence or nuanced thought.

Secondly, it's not psychobabble. It's rather straightforward logic that just has big words attached to it. When talking about things like this it's difficult to be specific and clear without specific and clear language. Calling it psychobabble to use words like "incompatibilism" and "determinism" is reductive and lazy.

__________________