[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Originally Posted by Ian
The definition of any word is arbitrary. The point is that free will has a particular meaning.

Paul
Which would be what, exactly?

You've read my blog entry. Let me repeat the relevant part:

We tend to think of our behaviour as being a result of our desires and intentions. Thus, for example, in waking up in the morning I might have the choice of having either porridge, or eggs and bacon for breakfast. I am immediately aware of having the power to choose which to have. I might choose eggs and bacon because I prefer the taste. Or I might choose porridge, maybe not because I prefer the taste, but because I am concerned with my weight or health. But whatever I choose it seems for all the world that it is my choice, and it is ultimately my choice even though I might be heavily influenced in making one choice or the other. Thus I may have no problems with my health and weight, have no ethical problems with eating meat, and vastly prefer the taste of eggs and bacon. Therefore it would seem I have no reason to choose to eat porridge for breakfast and every reason to eat eggs and bacon instead. Yet, notwithstanding all of this, I nevertheless still appear to have the power to choose to eat porridge. This power to choose between alternatives is what most of us tend to refer to as free will.

Ian
I don't believe that free will has a mechanism. I do not subscribe to the mechanistic philosophy -- as I've repeated to you over and over and over again. And I don't understand what "libertarian" free will means.

Paul
Then choose a word other than mechanism. It is a process, or an algorithm, or a device, or something.

It is? Why do you say that?

There has to be a sequence of steps that one goes through to make a free choice. Please describe the steps, paying particular attention to the part that is neither predetermined nor random.

I decide to do something, decide to move my body in the appropriate way, then it happens.

Ian
As I keep explaining ad nauseum a decision or choice by definition is not non-conscious. Otherwise we would need to say a statue chooses to remain still.

Paul
No, we wouldn't. We can simply say that statues don't make choices.

What about a moving object? Say the Earth orbiting the Sun? And if that doesn't make a choice either how can you say that we do??

Ian
We're in full control. I do not make decision as to put one foot in front of another, but I do choose to walk to a particular destination. Whilst I am walking I am on "autopilot", but at any time my conscious will can intervene to abort my walking.

Paul
But it would be too late, because you would have already walked off the cliff. You must decide to continue walking toward the destination, self-correcting along the way, or you have no idea where you will end up. You must make a sequence of decisions to keep yourself on the path.

You're simply using a different definition of choice that I do. Choosing which University degree to do, and "choosing" to keep my balance when I walk along are very different. It just causes confusion and endless pointless arguments when you conflate the two. That goes for consciousness too where you and other materialists keep redefining it as a physical process.

Ian
So computers make decisions?

Paul
Yes.

Let's make this very simple and consider the case of a pocket calculator. If I punch in 2 + 3 and it displays 5, it is extremely confusing to say that it chooses to display 5.

If you say that is ultimately all that we human beings do, then you are presupposing the materialist metaphysic. I maintain that under such a metaphysic free will and choices are an illusion.