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

by dhw, Sunday, September 27, 2015, 17:06 (3345 days ago) @ romansh

Dhw: But my question is why Romansh objects to the inclusion of consciousness in the definition. For the life of me, I cannot see how free will (if it exists) can come into play unless one is conscious of what is to be chosen/decided, what are the options, what are the restrictions and what may be the future consequences.-ROMANSH: I don't object to including consciousness in the definition, though I do think it is unnecessary and it leads us to go round in circles.-You think it is unnecessary and I think it is essential, especially in view of the borderline cases (involving levels of consciousnesss) I have outlined in the post to BBella which you have quoted above. If, as you tell us, you are only conscious “historically”, i.e. after the fact, it is small wonder you cannot even contemplate the possibility of free will. 
 
ROMANSH: What I do object to is leaving cause and effect out of the definition. This leads to all our circular arguments.-If freedom from cause and effect must be part of the definition, so must the compatibilist freedom from coercion by other individuals, social conventions and institutions. Both of you would then be demanding a definition that supports your view, and nobody can say that either of these criteria is correct. The argument is only circular because you keep coming back to the cause and effect criterion, ignoring the “coercion” alternative and dismissing individual identity on the vague grounds that the self is not what it seems although it is real (see my post of 21 September at 19.40).
 
ROMANSH: It leads to the contradictory statements like:
dhw at different times - we do not have conscious control of our decisions ... I do have conscious control of my decisions. 
We then go into deeper nonsense like both statements are true but it depends on one's point of view.-Not “but” - BECAUSE it depends on one's point of view. You do not seem to have grasped the fact that any issue on which there is no general consensus will offer contradictory arguments according to the subjectivity of the viewpoint. Human nature is good/bad because...Life is comic/tragic because...Religion is beneficial/harmful because...Science is/is not our most reliable means of access to truth because...We have/we do not have the ability to make conscious choices because...Of course it all depends on your point of view. But you prefer to ignore the opposing arguments and merely quote the opposing conclusions as if somehow the contradiction invalidated the arguments (or at least those you don't like).
 
ROMANSH: I would argue strongly that one or both points of view must be wrong!-I have noticed the strength of your tone, and I would argue just as strongly that there is no authority on earth who can make such a judgement. However, if you think both viewpoints could be wrong, let me ask you once again what other criteria you would consider to be valid.