Free will again (Humans)

by romansh , Sunday, February 26, 2012, 21:25 (4652 days ago) @ dhw

We had a pretty exhaustive discussion on this topic about 18 months ago. I objected then that your definition of free will as "the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe" automatically defines free will out of existence, since NOTHING we know of is independent of the universe.
So you choosing a definition to give free will a sporting chance? Yes NOTHING is independent (at least as far as we can tell). So what tortuousnesss are you going to include.-> I proposed an alternative definition, which I believe is far more in line with what most people understand by the term, and which leaves open the question of whether or not it exists: "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints".
Here you are defining one ineffable in terms of another. I disagree that something has to be conscious per se to be independentdent of the environment, though when we think about it, if it's nonsense for the unconscious why would it necessarily make any more sense for the conscious. Remember only a few lines ago you said NOTHING is independent, is that NOTHING except consciousness?-What on earth are given constraints? As opposed ungiven constraints?-> These were 1) outside constraints imposed by the situation or by Nature, 
OK what part of nature is not part of the environment or indeed the universe?-> and 2) constraints affecting the decision-making process itself, such as heredity, upbringing, education, illness, accidents, chance encounters.-I would also include body chemistry, biochemistry, physics, quantum mechanics/phenomena. -> I concluded this particular post (20 September 2010 at 12.04) with the following: "For me the question of free will is simply part of the even more complex one of identity [...] Just what is it that directs our minds to take decisions? Brain cells directing brain cells? Or the ghost in the machine?"-Here I agree with you. But if we can for the disentangle free will from self and consciousness and if we come to the conclusion we have no free will then we quickly see that self and consciousness are illusions too. We also see that disentangling these concepts were unnecessary as well.-The ghost in the machine is a fatuous argument. Either the ghost interacts with matter and therefore is measurable in some way (I'll be happy to hear of any evidence you have for this proposition!) or it does not interact then it is irrelevant.
 
> I agree with David that the question can only be resolved by discovering the source of consciousness, and since no-one knows what that is, I don't see how anyone can make a definitive statement either way.-That's nice. But the interesting thing is if we don't have free will, and consciousness and self are illusions what are the practical ramifications. Your default postion despite your admirable agnosticism seems, to me, to be on the side of free will. What are the causes for this?