Article on free will in Wired. Based on research.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Mere semantics? What is philosophy if not semantics?

Anyhoo, libertarian free will is an incoherent concept, so if that's the one we're going to use in this discussion, we're finished.

~~ Paul

There is no point in discussions that reduce to semantics - I am much happier to fix the meaning of words or phrases, than quibble over what they mean.

Clearly, people like Ian and I want 'free will' to mean essentially what 99% of humanity mean by this phrase. By that understanding, nothing that is equivalent to a mechanism can possess free will. Your materialist viewpoint means that you think it is appropriate to subtly change the meaning of free will - OK, fine, but why not admit that, and use a different term - pseudo-free will (PFW).

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Clearly, people like Ian and I want 'free will' to mean essentially what 99% of humanity mean by this phrase.

Can 99% of humanity clearly define what they mean when they say "free will"?

If not how do you know what they mean?

[David Bailey]

I mean that conscious beings have the ability to choose between alternatives. I mean that this is a real choice - not an illusion because their decision is not predictable - even in principle - from earlier brain states.

OK, not everyone will agree with that (!!), but I don't see any point in a mere semantic discussion as to whether 'free will' means the above, or something else!

David

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Yes, I agree that libertarian free will does not exist.

I certainly do not agree that free will doesn't exist. On the contrary, I've proved that necessarily it does exist. I don't know what you mean by libertarian free will though. It appears to be a term invented by materialists. But free will is free will is free will. Is my consciousness responsible for me typing these words or not? If it is then free will exists. There is not 2 different types of free will, that's just materialists trying to muddy the waters.

What an "innate" causal power?

I've explained all this! If you don't understand what Hume was talking about, then you shouldn't be discussing this subject at all.

How does this help? We're supposed to imagine two parallel universes, identical in every detail, including your psychological state. You would then make the same decision.

~~ Paul

So what? Travel backwards in time and covertly watch some historical figures. They will make precisely the same decisions. Does that entail they don't have free will?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Clearly, people like Ian and I want 'free will' to mean essentially what 99% of humanity mean by this phrase. By that understanding, nothing that is equivalent to a mechanism can possess free will. Your materialist viewpoint means that you think it is appropriate to subtly change the meaning of free will - OK, fine, but why not admit that, and use a different term - pseudo-free will (PFW).

Come on David, this is nonsense. First of all, you have no idea what 99% of humanity pictures when they think of free will. Secondly, I'm not trying to change the meaning of the term. There already are a spectrum of meanings: libertarian free will, incompatibilist free will, compatibilist free will. I've been very careful to try to get you to specify which one you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Chris

Can 99% of humanity clearly define what they mean when they say "free will"?

Witness this conversation.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

I mean that conscious beings have the ability to choose between alternatives. I mean that this is a real choice - not an illusion because their decision is not predictable - even in principle - from earlier brain states.

OK, not everyone will agree with that (!!), but I don't see any point in a mere semantic discussion as to whether 'free will' means the above, or something else!

If there is no point in narrowing down what we mean by free will, then there is no point to this conversation at all.

David: I have free will type A!

Paul: Could you define that?

Ian: I have free will type B! Only a fool would think of free will as anything else.

Paul: Is that the same thing as David has?

Ian: I've already defined free will.

Paul: David, do you subscribe to the same type as Ian?

David: I think so.

Paul: Could you define it, please?

David: Semantics! Semantics!

Ian: But free will is free will is free will.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

So what? Travel backwards in time and covertly watch some historical figures. They will make precisely the same decisions. Does that entail they don't have free will?

What does replaying history have to do with anything?

If you would make the same choice in every universe given the same state of affairs, then your decision is determined by that state of affairs. In what sense is your decision free?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Come on David, this is nonsense. First of all, you have no idea what 99% of humanity pictures when they think of free will.

I think this is absolutely wrong. We know precisely what the vast majority of people understand by free will. They would 100% agree with what I say on my blog where I say:

"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".

It's only the materialists who fail to understand what free will means -- just like they fail to understand what consciousness means. No one else has any difficulty whatsoever. Materialists seem to have this strange mental block preventing them from understanding in this subject area. This mental block isn't there for any other subject though.

Secondly, I'm not trying to change the meaning of the term. There already are a spectrum of meanings: libertarian free will, incompatibilist free will, compatibilist free will.

I do not agree there is a spectrum of meanings. People of sound commonsense understand there is only one meaning of free will.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

What does replaying history have to do with anything?

If you would make the same choice in every universe given the same state of affairs, then your decision is determined by that state of affairs. In what sense is your decision free?

~~ Paul

I don't know what you mean by "state of affairs". I've said that the physical state of the Universe does not compel me to behave as I do (although it obviously heavily influences).

So what else? My psychological state? But ones psychological state is partly influenced by ones self. So you would have to say that I am not free because my self dictates what I do. But the self dictating ones actions is precisely what is meant by free will. So your position is absurd.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

People of sound commonsense understand there is only one meaning of free will.

You guys are hilarious!