Seconded. (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Tuesday, September 07, 2010, 12:37 (5190 days ago) @ romansh

ROMANSH: The definition I'm using defines free will out of existence. [...] Alternatively we can define free will in a way which defines it into existence, by giving it properties (or a definition) that are a reflection of our experience of free will.-I don't know why you think either definition entails existence or non-existence. Your definition ("the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe") was originally approved by David, who believes in free will! You only say you've defined it out of existence because YOU don't think it's possible to act or make choices independently. My own definition ("an entity's conscious ability to make decisions independently of constraints beyond the control of that entity") is similarly non-committal. You can say there's no such thing as an entity, consciousness is "imponderable", we are dependent on chemistry, genetic make-up etc. and so free will does not exist. A conventionally religious person who believes in the "soul" will argue that his soul does have this conscious ability and can override the constraints, and therefore free will does exist. David believes in the self and in what I take to be a limited conscious ability to make decisions independently. None of these views invalidates the definition.***-When you say you find "road blocks" in your search for free will, I can't say I'm any different. There's no end to the chain of cause and effect (read Tristram Shandy!) and it's impossible to draw a line that will establish independence of all constraints. But that is reason talking, and since reason (of which I take science to be a supreme form) has so far failed to solve most of our mysteries, like the origin of life, will, consciousness, emotion, memory, imagination etc., I remain sufficiently sceptical to allow intuition to have its say. Intuition leads me to FEEL that when I make a decision, it is MY decision ... not that of my cerebral cortex, or my grandmother's chromosomes, or Pisces, or the guy that set off the Big Bang. At present, I don't know whether reason or intuition has the right answer. Eventually science may tell us.-*** I have just read your extraordinary response to Matt: you strongly agree that free will can't exist without consciousness but have avoided it in your definition, because if we conclude that we do not have free will, "then our perception of consciousness is not what it seems". If you agree, how can you leave it out of your definition? Once we have a consensus on what we mean by "free will", we can discuss whether or to what extent we have it, and what are the implications, especially for the "self" that rattles round our brains. The implications, of course, are enormous, but aren't they the purpose of the discussion?
 
Abandon false definitions, my friend, 
And follow an argument through to its end.
 (Thus Spake dhw)