Free Will, Consciousness, Identity (Identity)

by dhw, Wednesday, July 25, 2012, 15:05 (4293 days ago) @ romansh

ROMANSH: Firstly they [DETERMINISM/INDETERMINISM] are not polar opposites. This is the mistake libertarians of old, like William James, make when thinking when they vanquish determinism they have promoted free will.-As I said, this discussion is constantly running into problems of definition. There are umpteen definitions of both terms, but this is what I understand by them. Determinism: the philosophical doctrine that all events are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs. Indeterminism: the philosophical doctrine that not all events are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs.
 
ROMANSH: In a broad sense I agree with Matt, it is an irrelevant question as well as a non sequitur concept. -Irrelevant for whom and to what? The question is relevant for me, and is relevant to my understanding of myself, the nature of consciousness, and ultimately to the existence or non-existence of a god. A non sequitur is a statement that has no relevance to a preceding statement. Same problem: to what is the discussion on free will irrelevant?-ROMANSH: I suspect for some a lack of coercion is freedom. This of course leads to daft arguments that we excercise free will when choosing vanilla or chocolate ice cream for dessert. -Why is this a daft argument? You have always disagreed with my definition of free will as "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints". Your main reason for disagreeing was "because it includes consciousness as prerequisite" (11 October 2011 at 20.13). My argument is that the will only comes into play when a decision has to be made consciously, as per this dictionary definition: "the faculty of conscious and deliberate choice of action" (Collins). In the context of "free" will, this is the only definition of "will" that I consider relevant. (The definition does not, of course, mean that the will IS "free" in whatever sense.) You may trivialize this with the ice cream choice, but that involves the same conscious, deliberate process of thought as the decision to commit or not to commit adultery/theft/murder. We are confronted with a choice, we consciously weigh up the options, and then we decide. Your own definition of free will was: "the ability to act on or make choices independently of the environment or of the universe". Since the universe comprises everything that exists, you define free will out of the possibility of existence. See the next set of comments.-Dhw: Under normal circumstances, we all feel that the decision is "ours" (uncoerced), even if it is influenced by factors or causes that make "us" what "we" are.-ROMANSH: Fine but this is not what the free will debate is about.-For me that is precisely what it is about. For you, it seems to be about nothing (irrelevant), because you do not believe free will exists. Your definition is determinist. Of course, you have every right to believe what you believe, and to adhere to your definition. The point I made in my previous post was that this discussion IS all about definitions, and I do not accept yours, so we are discussing different things.
 
ROMANSH: What is your will a consequence of? -I have no idea, because I have no idea what my consciousness is a consequence of, and my will is one manifestation of my consciousness.
 
ROMANSH: Ultimately I agree we cannot know, we end up in solipsism (or Matt's brain in a vat). This I don't think is a good defence of free will. -I'm not offering it as a defence of free will (and I don't agree that we end up with solipsism!). I'm saying that until we know the source of consciousness, we cannot dismiss the concept of free will (by my definition) as you appear to do.
 
ROMANSH: That you don't see it as a non sequitur does not make not so (and vice versa). Having said that If freedom makes sense to you I will enjoy discussing your arguments for such a position.-Until you explain the argument that makes it a non sequitur, I don't understand your use of the term. Freedom certainly makes sense to me, though that doesn't mean we have it! I feel that under normal circumstances, when I'm required to make a conscious decision, "I" am in control of the process leading to that decision. In similar fashion, when "I" try to remember something, "I" search my memory. I have no idea what part of "me" gives me the ability to rack my brain, but it is the same element of my identity that gives me the ability to weigh up the pros and cons before taking my decision ... namely, a layer of consciousness that exercises control over those areas of my mind to which I have conscious access. (In Matt's terms, this refers to those thoughts that come when I will, and not when they will.) I'm not prepared to dismiss this ability as an illusion just because it and the various choices would not exist if the universe did not exist.