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

by romansh , Sunday, September 20, 2015, 00:18 (3142 days ago) @ dhw

Why? You refuse to accept the link between consciousness and free will, and even claim to be unaware of what you write. I can only repeat that in my view zombies cannot have free will even in the context of my identity approach. The properties, nature and source of consciousness are a different subject.-Quagmire of consciousness! But as written you have got it wrong. I happen to think our perceptions of consciousness are not what they seem. I also think consciousness is unnecessary in a definition of free will. That our actions are totally a result of cause and effect (conscious or otherwise) would cause a moment of pause for some. Apparently not all though.-> I don't know how often I have to repeat that I accept the cause and effect argument. Whether the brain is a broadcaster or a receiver makes no difference to the two approaches that I have been trying to discuss with you.-> Forgive me, Romansh, but this is getting silly. I have offered you two DIFFERENT approaches to the subject of free will. Once more: the cause and effect approach leads to the conclusion that we do not have free will. The identity approach leads to the conclusion that we do have it. I find both approaches equally valid. Similarly, when I consider different arguments, I can accept that God may exist or God may not exist. That is why I am an agnostic. Seeing both sides of an argument does not constitute an oxymoron.-Yes I find it silly too. You seem to hold two different views as true that are diametrically opposed.-I thought you wanted to leave god out of it? But are you agnostic about a traditional view of Christianity? I understand we can accept we can truly not "know" that an angel came to Mary and foretold of an immaculate birth of God's son, fair enough. And you may not hold an active belief that this is true, but do you to any degree actively disbelieve this version of events?
 
> So do you and those who share your beliefs have a monopoly on the truth?
No more than you do dhw. But determinist view point has been the crux of the issue for more than two millennia. -Of course you may be determined to define free will as you want (or will). This too is determined consciously or otherwise.
 
 
> This example incorporates the given constraints in my definition (handcuffs, my surroundings, my capabilities), awareness of the conditions and options (essential to the consciousness that forms part of my definition and not yours), but surprisingly mentions only one of the causes governing my decision (past experiences); you forgot to mention that according to your definition my decision also depends on the existence of the universe. 
My surroundings are not independent of the universe. Unless you claim otherwise?-> I accept all the various causes related to my decision as being beyond my control. On the other hand, my experiences are mine and nobody else's etc. etc. and my decisions will be taken with the aid of a consciousness that is mine and mine alone.-With the aid of consciousness? You have yet to establish consciousness does anything? I keep asking you about this. You seem certain that it is your consciousness that is doing something. I am far more agnostic about this than you are.
 
> As regards machines, I personally do not believe they are conscious, but it makes no difference either way. If humans have free will, free will exists, regardless of mechanical consciousness or non-consciousness. “We have no way of verifying this belief”. 
Again I am more agnostic about this than you.
> Good, you have discovered the great pitfall of epistemology. There are certain areas of existence where we have no way of verifying our beliefs. We can only consider the different approaches and draw our subjective conclusions. You are only prepared to consider one approach and so you draw your one unverifiable, subjective conclusion.-I am more than prepared to consider different approaches. But there is a stumbling block of determinism. In your definition you completely ignore determinism as though it is irrelevant to the subject of free will.-> I don't regard what I know of my “self” to be arbitrary, and I don't even think of my identity in terms of drawing a line. I am a mass of actuals and potentials, and of countless influences, some of which I am not even aware of, which constitute the cause and effect argument against free will. 
And where do these potentials and influences begin and end?-> But I am still me etc. etc. and so “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.”
And yet you hold the bolded bit as untrue if cause and effect are true.-> Of course not. And while you can say cause and effect are the only criterion for judging whether we have free will or not, it does not make it true. If we knew what was true, we would have nothing to discuss.
Again they are not the only criterion; but they, at least, should be included in the discussion/definition.