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

by dhw, Sunday, September 20, 2015, 14:28 (3140 days ago) @ romansh

ROMANSH: 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.-If you don't think you are aware of what you are writing, and of the conditions and options open to you when you make a decision, we can agree to disagree. Yes, our actions are totally the result of cause and effect (a valid argument against free will), but the notion that my identity is mine alone, regardless of all influences, and therefore gives me the ability to make my own conscious choices within given constraints would cause a moment of pause for some. Apparently not all though.
 
ROMANSH: You seem to hold two different views as true that are diametrically opposed.-That is because the concept we are discussing is open to (at least) two different and in my view equally valid interpretations. The will is not free from cause and effect, but as part of one's personal identity it is free from coercion other than that imposed by given constraints (such as the environment and the obvious restrictions on our capabilities).
 
ROMANSH: I thought you wanted to leave god out of it? 
I do and shall. I referred to agnosticism only in order to illustrate the fact that some of us can see both sides of an argument. -ROMANSH: ...determinist view point has been the crux of the issue for more than two millennia.-And for more than two millennia there has been opposition to determinism. I maintain that the clash is based on different interpretations of what we mean by free will. 
 
Dhw: This example incorporates the given constraints in my definition (handcuffs, my surroundings, my capabilities) etc.
ROMANSH: My surroundings are not independent of the universe. Unless you claim otherwise?-Of course not. Everything is dependent on the universe, which is why your definition is skewed (see below).-Dhw: 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.
ROMANSH: 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. -You keep uttering vague hints about perception of consciousness not being what it seems, and you are not aware of what you are writing, and I keep telling you that for me free will entails making choices, which in turn entails being aware of the conditions (including given constraints) and options involved in those choices. Consciousness doesn't “do” anything - it is the awareness without which we cannot make our choices. -Dhw: You are only prepared to consider one approach and so you draw your one unverifiable, subjective conclusion.
ROMANSH: 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.-Again this is getting silly. The definition defines what we mean by free will, which put in its simplest form is the ability to make choices. The discussion then concerns whether or not we have that ability. Your definition tells us that we do not have it, because nothing is independent of the universe. In my view the definition should be neutral.-Dhw: 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. 
ROMANSH: And where do these potentials and influences begin and end?-I would have to know the past and future history of the universe to answer that. You quote me and ignore what you quote: that constitutes “the cause and effect argument against free will.” -Dhw: 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.”
ROMANSH: And yet you hold the bolded bit as untrue if cause and effect are true.-This is getting sillier and sillier. I do not hold it as untrue. I hold both propositions as true, depending on which approach to the subject we adopt. -Dhw: 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.
ROMANSH: Again they are not the only criterion; but they, at least, should be included in the discussion/definition.-“Again”? This is the first time you have acknowledged that there might be other criteria. Could this be progress? Cause and effect have always been part of the discussion, but the definition should be neutral. Once more: cause and effect approach = we do not have the ability; identity approach = we do. My definition allows for both approaches.