Free Will (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by romansh , Saturday, September 04, 2010, 17:55 (4973 days ago) @ dhw

Once again, I think you're trying to argue on two different levels at once. The first level is purely semantic. You introduced the term "free will" into our discussion on intelligence, and have now said what you mean by it. Your definition presupposes the existence of the environment and of the universe, while the ability to act or make choices clearly presupposes the existence of individual human beings.
Although dhw, you and I, may be the figment of some being's or Matrix's imagination, and I have no method of proving otherwise; it does seem pointless and churlish to assume my perception is other than a reflection of my environment and the universe. -While my definition of free will does presuppose human beings, at least in my mind's eye; the definition itself does not. It applies to machines, bricks, computers, plants, animals etc.
>>The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe.-> If the environment and the universe might make our decisions dependent, how can you argue that the given, uncontrollable elements of human beings are not just as capable of doing so?-Just exactly do you mean by controllable/uncontrollable? My next part of the question (sorry boundary bound) where does the the human being begin and end - sorry? I find thinking/reasoning about free will leads me to question the typical dualistic perception of the universe - "There's me and then there is the rest of the universe."-> My own definition (1 September at 14.42) is "the conscious ability to make decisions independently of constraints beyond one's own control". No-one has taken a blind bit of notice (I feel a strange kinship with Cassandra!) but I don't think it's THAT bad. At least tell me what's wrong with it.
For me it bring's in the extra imponderable - consciousness - and it very definitely implies a human being with "one's", it implies boundaries - which is OK. To me the discussion on intelligence and free will has been very "anthropic", which of course is OK we are humans. 
 
> What I think you're saying is that human beings can't be separated from their environment and the universe, and therefore we can't separate the self. It's the mystic "All is One". Consequently there can be no such thing as free will. 
No it's not mystic - I like to think of it as reasoned. I'm not sure "All is one" is a good description but it's heading that way. Scientific monism might be a better description.-On a day to day basis or pragmatic level I would describe myself as a pluralist. And I suppose dualism has it's place for the quick decisions, yes-no, right-wrong, good-bad, stop-go and so on.-> The Strawson quote ... again please correct me if I'm wrong ... suggests that eventually all our thoughts must go back to something we can't control, which is a bit like saying we don't know what governs our subconscious (though I don't want to be drawn into a discussion on boundaries between conscious and subconscious). 
More or less - it's a reworking of a Schopenhauer thought. Though if I remember correctly Strawson aims his comments at "will" rather than "thoughts".
> However, as is now becoming habitual in our discussions, I have to say that on a pragmatic level, I feel that I have an individual self and I feel that I have a free will, and even if reason may suggest otherwise, I know from experience that reason is not always the best guide.-Again I don't disagree with this approach - the moment I stop thinking about free will I go into my unconscious free will mode. But (my) reason does tell me I should not blindly assume the existence of free will.-To be clear, I do not believe in free will - ie I do not hold a belief in free will. As an agnostic I do not disbelieve in free will either. I appear to experience it but I am awaiting for someone to point out a rational mechanism for it, because I cannot find one. I feel I experience the colour 'blue', though when I think about it, I suspect 'blue' may not be what it seems.-And as a further aside, as an agnostic I try to avoid beliefs - fail miserably of course