Free Will, Consciousness, Identity (Identity)

by romansh , Wednesday, July 25, 2012, 02:40 (4503 days ago) @ dhw

This discussion is constantly running into problems of definition. Determinism and indeterminism are the polar options, just like the existence or non-existence of God. Matt says the concept is irrelevant, and I have asked "for whom and to what?" You say it's a non sequitur. How does having two options make it a non sequitur, and to what preceding statement is it unconnected?
>
Firstly they 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.-In a broad sense I agree with Matt, it is an irrelevant question as well as a non sequitur concept. -> As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), both sides use different concepts of freedom ... i.e. a different set of goalposts. Incompatibilists argue that you can never be free from the endless chain of causes that lead to a decision, and compatibilists argue that you are free from coercion.-You will have to confirm with someone who truly understands compatibilism. But 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. -> 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.-Fine but this is not what the free will debate is about. -> In other words, whatever constitutes our personal identity is the autonomous decision-maker. With those two very different definitions in mind, and having no idea what is the source of consciousness (of which the will is one manifestation), I don't see how we can know the extent to which the will is "free". -What is your will a consequence of? Excuse the terminal preposition. 
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. On the other hand we can examine each component of our bodies to see where this freedom enters. Good luck.-> But for me that does not make the subject a non sequitur, or invalid, or irrelevant. It simply means that the question ... like that concerning the existence of God ... is unanswerable except in terms of subjective belief.-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.-The first law of thermodynamics states you don't get something for nothing. There is no free lunch. The second law drives the point home.