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

by romansh , Sunday, September 20, 2015, 20:47 (3140 days ago) @ dhw
edited by romansh, Sunday, September 20, 2015, 21:07

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.
Again word games on your part dhw. I have never claimed I am not aware. Just that the awareness/consciousness is historical - after the fact. Disagree away.-> 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.
 I don't have a clue what you mean when you say yours alone. I have not claimed that you are someone else. I have not even claimed you can't be aware of the changes that you make. 
 
> 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).-Actually I am discussing the very words you used. Now if you can hold two diametrically opposed views as true, then you are a 'better' man than I. In my world view one or both of those views has to be false.-And note I am not speaking about free will as such, or at least not necessarily so. I am speaking to your ability to make conscious choices and not being able to make conscious choices. This I would describe as silly.-> 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. 
Yet you seem to claim determinism (in its modern sense) as true. -What amazes me are compatibilists who hold determinism as true, yet don't see the ramifications of this belief regardless how we define free will. It is almost as though they are caused to have a desire to have free will regardless.-The interesting thing libertarians of the last two centuries or so, recognize the problem as do hard determinists.-> Of course not. Everything is dependent on the universe, which is why your definition is skewed (see below).-The point being we are part of the causal chain of the universe unfolding. You arbitrarily draw boundaries around certain objects and claim they have consciousness (note your version of consciousness and not mine) and hey presto we have free will. This too is skewed.
 
> 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. -Not so vague ... you are too busy to read the self illusion. 
http://www.agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=14883
http://richannel.org/christmas-lectures/2011/meet-your-brain#/christmas-lectures-2011-bruce-hood--whats-in-your-head
> 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.-In your simplest form computers make choices. Hence the quagmire.
My definition simply points to the nature of how choices are made.
Definitions should be neutral - poppycock. They should describe as accurately as possible, what we mean. We don't need to give some under dog a fighting chance.
 
> 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.” 
Not at all ... you hold two diametrically opposed positions and somehow hold them both true. If I found myself in such a position I would back away from one or both of those positions. But that's just me.-> 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. 
 
See my response immediately above ... but I agree silly is an appropriate description.
 
> “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.-I am sure I have agreed we can define free will, into and out of existence before. ->> Your definition vesus mine
>> Again we play a semantic game.
>> If we are truly conscious then yes we have free will by that definition. 
>> But the problem does not go away. Is there anything and I mean anything in that choice that was independent of cause?
http://www.agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=14997
and
http://www.agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=14951