Article on free will in Wired. Based on research.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

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.

Hmm.....

Paul: "Mary - I love you!"

Mary: "Oh wonderful, but can you define "love", just so that I can be sure we are both referring to the same concept!"

Paul: "Er, you are the first girl to ask me that - I'll just go to my computer and find out what David and Ian have to say on the matter! On second thoughts, that may take some time, so let's say love is really liking the other person a lot."

Mary: "Hmm - my previous boyfriend had a more impressive answer, but I guess your definition is adequate. There is just one small point - can you define "like", and while we are on with it, the phrase "a lot" is rather vague too, can you quantify it?"

Paul: "*??**!!"

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

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

All righty then.

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).

The thought experiment is to have two identical universes in all respects: physical, ideal, metaphysical, etc. Whatever your favorite metaphysic, please make two identical copies of the whole shebang. Now, would you make the same decision in both universes?

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.

So in a physical world, my self is my brain. It dictates my actions. That is precisely what is meant by free will. My position isn't any different from yours. You just like the sound of your self being something ideal-ish rather than physical-ish. You don't mind your actions being predetermined as long as one of the causes of your actions is called "idealistic self."

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Paul: "Mary - I love you!"

Mary: "Oh wonderful, but can you define "love", just so that I can be sure we are both referring to the same concept!"

Paul: "Er, you are the first girl to ask me that - I'll just go to my computer and find out what David and Ian have to say on the matter! On second thoughts, that may take some time, so let's say love is really liking the other person a lot."

Mary: "Hmm - my previous boyfriend had a more impressive answer, but I guess your definition is adequate. There is just one small point - can you define "like", and while we are on with it, the phrase "a lot" is rather vague too, can you quantify it?"

Paul: "*??**!!"

And indeed, if Mary and I were having a philsophical discussion about love and whether it is logically possible, we would have a tough job ahead of us. Fortunately, we just fell in love and didn't have to analyze it.

So if you just want to fall into free will and accept it on faith, then you certainly don't need to define it.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

And indeed, if Mary and I were having a philsophical discussion about love and whether it is logically possible, we would have a tough job ahead of us. Fortunately, we just fell in love and didn't have to analyze it.

So if you just want to fall into free will and accept it on faith, then you certainly don't need to define it.

~~ Paul

The main point I was trying to make, was that any definition is just in terms of more words, which in turn need defining ..... infinite regress!

Since the only terms that are acceptable to you as base terms (not requiring definition) are intrinsically materialist, any expression like 'free will' always appears to need defining, and defining, and defining, until it has morphed into a subtly different concept that fits with your world view.

Think again of the guy defining 'fire' as the rapid release of an object's spirit. It may have seemed like a good definition, but what good was it?

My aim is not to suppress the disagreement, but to try to prevent it being buried in disagreement about definitions. The question should be whether type A free will (i.e. the thing 99% of people mean by the term) is:

a) An illusion.

b) A reality.

c) Something else.

Instead, we get diverted into the question of its definition! If you really want a definition of Type A free will, it must conform with the 99%, whereas your Type M free will can obviously conform with your ideas! It is clumsy, but it might work. Your disagreement with Ian, is not really about definitions, it is about the nature of reality.

David

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Hmm.....

Paul: "Mary - I love you!"

Mary: "Oh wonderful, but can you define "love", just so that I can be sure we are both referring to the same concept!"

Paul: "Er, you are the first girl to ask me that - I'll just go to my computer and find out what David and Ian have to say on the matter! On second thoughts, that may take some time, so let's say love is really liking the other person a lot."

Mary: "Hmm - my previous boyfriend had a more impressive answer, but I guess your definition is adequate. There is just one small point - can you define "like", and while we are on with it, the phrase "a lot" is rather vague too, can you quantify it?"

Paul: "*??**!!"

David

There is a good comedy sketch in there

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Since the only terms that are acceptable to you as base terms (not requiring definition) are intrinsically materialist, any expression like 'free will' always appears to need defining, and defining, and defining, until it has morphed into a subtly different concept that fits with your world view.

Now you're just using me as an excuse not to define your terms. I haven't seen you define free will at all, so I certainly haven't morphed your definition into something else.

The question should be whether type A free will (i.e. the thing 99% of people mean by the term) is:

a) An illusion.

b) A reality.

c) Something else.

Instead, we get diverted into the question of its definition!

To quote Chris, "You guys are hilarious!" OMFG, let's not have to define the term before we decide if it's an illusion or reality. That would be work.

If you really want a definition of Type A free will, it must conform with the 99%

So you'll only accept a folk definition of free will. Okay, what is it?

Your disagreement with Ian, is not really about definitions, it is about the nature of reality.

No kidding.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

So you'll only accept a folk definition of free will. Okay, what is it?

~~ Paul

Well, you can more or less take any dictionary definition, or something out of GOOGLE, such as this:

"the partial freedom of the agent, in acts of conscious choice, from the determining compulsion of heredity, environment and circumstance."

The problem is immediately obvious - the definition depends on the definitions of:

freedom
agent
conscious
choice
determining
compulsion

From the point of a philosophical discussion such as we are having, you simply enter a branching tree of further definitions.

You just can't define these concepts in an absolute way - which is a rather curious fact, I would say.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

"the partial freedom of the agent, in acts of conscious choice, from the determining compulsion of heredity, environment and circumstance."

The problem is immediately obvious - the definition depends on the definitions of: ... compulsion

Yup, and that's a loaded word if I've ever heard one. Does compulsion include determinism?

If that's the best definition anyone can come up with, then there is no point to this conversation at all.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian, I just mentioned on the JREF forum that I was chatting with you here and Mercutio sends his greetings. He said he love to meet you some day and argue over the ontology of several pints of Stella. Not to be confused with arguing ontology over several pints of Stella.

Where's the pub?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Ian, I just mentioned on the JREF forum that I was chatting with you here and Mercutio sends his greetings. He said he love to meet you some day and argue over the ontology of several pints of Stella. Not to be confused with arguing ontology over several pints of Stella.

Where's the pub?

~~ Paul

Well I'll be in the trader jacks in 35 mins in Stockton-on-Tees, England.

Can't believe you're all still going on about that checker board "illusion".