A Sense of Free Will: the consciousness quagmire (Introduction)

by romansh , Friday, September 18, 2015, 17:59 (3136 days ago) @ dhw
edited by romansh, Friday, September 18, 2015, 18:18

I do not accept your “supposedly”. For me, the concept of free will is inseparable from conscious choice/decision. I don't know what you mean by “historical artifact”, unless it's a roundabout way of saying that both the choice and the decision are subject to the chain of cause and effect, in which case I agree.-We should be discussing the properties of this supposed consciousness, not whether we have it or not. To use David's analogy is our brain more of a broadcaster than a receiver? If we accept that cause and effect are true, then our consciousness is at the end of the causal chain. So does this consciousness cause our actions and propagate the causal chain or is it simply an awareness (instrument panel view) of the workings of the brain? Either way it is part of the causal flux that is going on as the universe unfolds. 
 
> You also say that coercion is not relevant, and that my claim that on this level I have conscious control over my decisions is an oxymoron in view of my acceptance of the cause-effect argument.
Juxtapose your two statements dhw:
> we do not have conscious control of our decisions ... I do have conscious control of my decisions. 
Do you understand why I might think your position might contain an oxymoron?-> No it isn't. Originally it was on whether we have control over our decisions, and how our wills are formed (cause and effect) was the approach you chose, but now the subject has become whether freedom from cause and effect is the only criterion by which we can make a judgement. 
It is for me. And many other philosophers. -> You say it is, I say it isn't, because on the second level, despite all influences,
I will give an example. If you put me in handcuffs, this will limit the choices of actions I might take. But it does not affect what I might have wanted to do. I still have to make decisions on whether to struggle, escape or not. These are all determined by my surroundings past experiences and my perception of my capabilities.-> I can still say that I have the conscious ability to control my decision-making (my definition of free will). It is the age-old epistemological problem of different premises. -While you can say it, it does not make it true. Also you found you need to throw in consciousness there somewhere (and hence the quagmire) because machines too have the ability make decisions too. Of course you might claim machines do not have consciousness and we have no way of verifying this belief. 
 
> In passing and purely for information: I mentioned libertarianism and origination in this context, and you questioned the reference. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy defines origination as “the creation of new causal chains by free human choices” and it goes on to say that “libertarianism asserts that there are such genuine creations.” But I don't think we need to be sidetracked on definitions of what libertarians do or don't believe, and as we are both agnostics, I suggest we leave religion out of the discussion as well.-I included it because it was one that was readily available to mind. But libertarianism is relevant to god not necessarily religion. At its heart libertarianism suggests that each human being is an uncaused cause. Sound familiar?-> I can see why you like her, as she also seems to operate on single levels. In terms of free will itself, the following is quite revealing (I was clearly echoing William James without realizing it!):-I hope not too much as William James was a libertarian.
 
> “James does not reject the possibility of free will, and his analysis of self is subtle. Yet, one hundred years before Wegner's research, he beautifully exposed the retrospective attributions we routinely give to an imagined self. ‘We' are said to deliberate, ‘we' decide, and those voluntary fiats, reasons and motives are ours. 
> Wouldn't it be more honest to accept all these attributions for what they are, drop the notion of the self who decides, and simply let the competing ideas get on with it without interference? Might life even be easier, and making decisions less agonising, if we could? This is what I am suggesting.”
> 
> Why drop the notion of the self? 
cf drop the notion of the self who decides-> The influences that shape the attributes are not the attributes themselves, so why is it more “honest” to regard them as an imagined self than as a self? 
Because we draw an arbitrary line around something and call it a self. Admittedly it is a useful line.-> And does she really think the ideas exist independently of the person that has them? 
No I don't but people don't exist independently either.-> She is welcome to switch off her awareness of her awareness of her awareness (levels again) if it makes her life easier, but that is her decision - or the decision of her competing ideas. 
I would argue she is every bit as aware as you if not more so.
> I'm afraid that for me it still won't make the cause-and-effect approach any more valid than the identity approach.
I suppose you prefer the identity approach while thinking the cause and effect are true. -Go figure; as they say in north America.