Comments on: On Free Will I: Executive Summary http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Wilfred http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-560 Wilfred Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:41:29 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-560 Ehm, I'm sorry, but you seem to be confusing materialism with determinism. The indeterminism of quantummechanics already saves you from the first two hobgoblins. Ehm, I'm sorry, but you seem to be confusing materialism with determinism. The indeterminism of quantummechanics already saves you from the first two hobgoblins.

]]> By: Mike K http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-450 Mike K Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:06:22 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-450 According to British philosopher Galen Strawson, free will is a 'want' that we have acquired rather than something that actually exists. He argues that the impossibility of free will and ultimate moral responsibility can be proved with complete certainty. But he admits it's not practical to live like that. His reasoning goes something like this: (1) You do what you do in the circumstances in which you find yourself because of the way you are. (2) So if you’re going to be ultimately responsible for what you do, you’re going to have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are at least in certain mental respects. (3) But you can’t be ultimately responsible for the way you are (you can’t be causa sui, you can’t be the cause of yourself, you can’t be truly or ultimately self-made in any way). (4) So you can’t be ultimately responsible for what you do. If he's right, then the matter of our free will is as nebulous and vaporous as the holy ghost. It will be most interesting to see how you tackle this problem Adam. According to British philosopher Galen Strawson, free will is a 'want' that we have acquired rather than something that actually exists. He argues that the impossibility of free will and ultimate moral responsibility can be proved with complete certainty. But he admits it's not practical to live like that. His reasoning goes something like this:

(1) You do what you do in the circumstances in which you find yourself because of the way you are.

(2) So if you’re going to be ultimately responsible for what you do, you’re going to have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are at least in certain mental respects.

(3) But you can’t be ultimately responsible for the way you are (you can’t be causa sui, you can’t be the cause of yourself, you can’t be truly or ultimately self-made in any way).

(4) So you can’t be ultimately responsible for what you do.

If he's right, then the matter of our free will is as nebulous and vaporous as the holy ghost. It will be most interesting to see how you tackle this problem Adam.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-449 Ebonmuse Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:00:36 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-449 A few remarks: <blockquote>In that scenario, it is clear that the required modelling is impossible. Not just practically impossible, but theoretically impossible, because such a model would be required to be entirely separate from (and greater than) the universe to avoid modelling itself, meaning that the universe was 'part of' some even greater model you'd also need to take into account.</blockquote> You're getting ahead of me. :) <blockquote>I've never fully understood the question of "Do we have free will?". It's an inherently contradctory question. For one thing, it's impossible to physically tell. We can guess and assume, but it's impossble to measure.</blockquote> I don't think any additional measurements are needed. I would argue that all the evidence we need to determine whether we have free will or not is already in; it's merely a matter of interpreting it. Free will is nothing mystical or elusive, in my view, and moreover is not that hard to come by. <blockquote>Does a cat chosing to eat over sleep exercising free will? Is a computer turning on its fan to cool down showing free will? Is a bacteria chosing to invade a cell expressing free will?</blockquote> Part IV will, I hope, address the question of what it means to choose. I believe most of the ambiguity on this issue has to do with an imprecise definition of what that term has historically meant. A few remarks:

In that scenario, it is clear that the required modelling is impossible. Not just practically impossible, but theoretically impossible, because such a model would be required to be entirely separate from (and greater than) the universe to avoid modelling itself, meaning that the universe was 'part of' some even greater model you'd also need to take into account.

You're getting ahead of me. :)

I've never fully understood the question of "Do we have free will?". It's an inherently contradctory question. For one thing, it's impossible to physically tell. We can guess and assume, but it's impossble to measure.

I don't think any additional measurements are needed. I would argue that all the evidence we need to determine whether we have free will or not is already in; it's merely a matter of interpreting it. Free will is nothing mystical or elusive, in my view, and moreover is not that hard to come by.

Does a cat chosing to eat over sleep exercising free will? Is a computer turning on its fan to cool down showing free will? Is a bacteria chosing to invade a cell expressing free will?

Part IV will, I hope, address the question of what it means to choose. I believe most of the ambiguity on this issue has to do with an imprecise definition of what that term has historically meant.

]]> By: Montu http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-448 Montu Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:01:11 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-448 Dude, you're messen' with my karma! Throwing all my chakras outta alignment! :-p This will be really interesting, and will probably make me re-think some more things, as well. I just figured out what determanism is reacently, and I was coming to terms with my life being one big "because I said so," and now you're offering the belief that free will is possible. Great. Now I'm going to have to hole myself up in my room, scratch away at my notebook, and figure out which is true. I can't wait!! ^_^ Yes, I'm a young atheist, still trying to figure out what all that means, and that's why I'm glad this site is here, as well as Ebonmusings. The challenge is great! Dude, you're messen' with my karma! Throwing all my chakras outta alignment! :-p This will be really interesting, and will probably make me re-think some more things, as well. I just figured out what determanism is reacently, and I was coming to terms with my life being one big "because I said so," and now you're offering the belief that free will is possible. Great. Now I'm going to have to hole myself up in my room, scratch away at my notebook, and figure out which is true. I can't wait!! ^_^

Yes, I'm a young atheist, still trying to figure out what all that means, and that's why I'm glad this site is here, as well as Ebonmusings. The challenge is great!

]]> By: BlackWizardMagus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-446 BlackWizardMagus Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:03:58 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-446 Hmm...I think this was actually the same topic that prompted me to first talk to Adam directly. That seemed to be what I took away; something like a quantum state in us, at the very basic level, that is actually random, or at least unmeasureable. That's not how it was put, but that's how I took it; that there is an ultimate ground state beyond prediction or understanding. That's really a good enough answer for me, but let's see what else comes about. We're waiting eagerly Adam! Hmm...I think this was actually the same topic that prompted me to first talk to Adam directly. That seemed to be what I took away; something like a quantum state in us, at the very basic level, that is actually random, or at least unmeasureable. That's not how it was put, but that's how I took it; that there is an ultimate ground state beyond prediction or understanding. That's really a good enough answer for me, but let's see what else comes about. We're waiting eagerly Adam!

]]> By: Gene http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-445 Gene Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:32:46 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-445 I gotta say, I'm keen on seeing where this goes. I've read a lot of what Ebonmuse has had to say at his site, and most of it, I've agreed with. However, I've been a rock-solid determinist since I first learned about chaos theory back in high school. Granted, there may be a core self which makes choices, but it's my contention that that self is itself an amalgam of external determinants. Or maybe I'm wrong... I gotta say, I'm keen on seeing where this goes. I've read a lot of what Ebonmuse has had to say at his site, and most of it, I've agreed with. However, I've been a rock-solid determinist since I first learned about chaos theory back in high school. Granted, there may be a core self which makes choices, but it's my contention that that self is itself an amalgam of external determinants.

Or maybe I'm wrong...

]]> By: Quath http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-440 Quath Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:09:49 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-440 I would like to understand what is meant by "free will." Does a cat chosing to eat over sleep exercising free will? Is a computer turning on its fan to cool down showing free will? Is a bacteria chosing to invade a cell expressing free will? I would like to understand what is meant by "free will." Does a cat chosing to eat over sleep exercising free will? Is a computer turning on its fan to cool down showing free will? Is a bacteria chosing to invade a cell expressing free will?

]]> By: BlackWizardMagus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-439 BlackWizardMagus Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:51:42 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-439 I've never fully understood the question of "Do we have free will?". It's an inherently contradctory question. For one thing, it's impossible to physically tell. We can guess and assume, but it's impossble to measure. But beyond that, simply asking the question is meaningless; if there is no free will, then you are not asking in the tradition sense of the word, you are simply following programming. Knowledge is useless. Asking is useless. Basically, the question is meaningless if it's a yes. It's like another old question; can we prove that anything exists? The answer is no, we can't prove it, but if nothing exists, so what? If we assume it does exist, we can live, but if we assume life is an illusion, then we may as well die. It is self-defeating to ask. I will be interested in seeing the conclusions you come too, however. I have never read Dennet or many other philosophers directly on this question, so I am curious to see what the sides have to offer. I've never fully understood the question of "Do we have free will?". It's an inherently contradctory question. For one thing, it's impossible to physically tell. We can guess and assume, but it's impossble to measure. But beyond that, simply asking the question is meaningless; if there is no free will, then you are not asking in the tradition sense of the word, you are simply following programming. Knowledge is useless. Asking is useless. Basically, the question is meaningless if it's a yes. It's like another old question; can we prove that anything exists? The answer is no, we can't prove it, but if nothing exists, so what? If we assume it does exist, we can live, but if we assume life is an illusion, then we may as well die. It is self-defeating to ask.

I will be interested in seeing the conclusions you come too, however. I have never read Dennet or many other philosophers directly on this question, so I am curious to see what the sides have to offer.

]]> By: Dominic Self http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-438 Dominic Self Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:50:17 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-438 Without jumping in ahead of time, I'd offer this suggestion: Why not assume that everything in the universe follows certain indisputable rules. Every single atom, each quark or electromagnetic wave (depending on your persuasion :-P) 'will' behave in a certain way because if you modelled every thing else in the universe with perfect accuracy, there would only be one possible outcome. In that scenario, it is clear that the required modelling is impossible. Not just practically impossible, but theoretically impossible, because such a model would be required to be entirely separate from (and greater than) the universe to avoid modelling itself, meaning that the universe was 'part of' some even greater model you'd also need to take into account. Agh! Hence, even if you do accept the original assumption (hotly disputed I'm sure, I have no way of guessing whether it is 'true' or not) then free will can quite happily exist because the universe is by definition inherently unpredictable. To me, asking if free will exists is a bit like asking if we live in a 3D world. We clearly do, even if at the same time we clearly don't. Without jumping in ahead of time, I'd offer this suggestion:

Why not assume that everything in the universe follows certain indisputable rules. Every single atom, each quark or electromagnetic wave (depending on your persuasion :-P) 'will' behave in a certain way because if you modelled every thing else in the universe with perfect accuracy, there would only be one possible outcome. In that scenario, it is clear that the required modelling is impossible. Not just practically impossible, but theoretically impossible, because such a model would be required to be entirely separate from (and greater than) the universe to avoid modelling itself, meaning that the universe was 'part of' some even greater model you'd also need to take into account. Agh! Hence, even if you do accept the original assumption (hotly disputed I'm sure, I have no way of guessing whether it is 'true' or not) then free will can quite happily exist because the universe is by definition inherently unpredictable.

To me, asking if free will exists is a bit like asking if we live in a 3D world. We clearly do, even if at the same time we clearly don't.

]]> By: Jeff G http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-437 Jeff G Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:31:34 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html#comment-437 I will be very interested to hear how you approach the issue of responsibility from a compatibilists point of view. I too am a compatibilist who has been deeply influenced by Dennett's books but in all honesty his positive account of responsibility is lacking to put it mildly. I will be very interested to hear how you approach the issue of responsibility from a compatibilists point of view. I too am a compatibilist who has been deeply influenced by Dennett's books but in all honesty his positive account of responsibility is lacking to put it mildly.

]]>