Free will again (Humans)

by dhw, Monday, February 27, 2012, 14:53 (4652 days ago) @ romansh

I object to Romansh's definition of free will as "the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe". It defines free will out of existence, since NOTHING we know of is independent of the universe.
 
ROMANSH: 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.-It's not tortuous. Our choices can't be "independent" of the things between which we are to choose, and all of these are part of the universe. If the menu offers raspberry jelly and apple crumble, my choice is not "independent" of them, but that doesn't mean I don't have the freedom to decide. (However, NB (2) below.)-Dhw: The definition I proposed leaves open the question of whether or not free will exists: "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints".
 
ROMANSH: What on earth are given constraints? As opposed ungiven constraints?-"Given" is a philosophical term which counters the sceptical claim that we can know nothing. "Givens" are those things which non-sceptics argue we can be certain of. Without them, there is no point in discussing anything. In the above example, raspberry jelly and apple crumble are the givens. I can't change the items on the menu (= given constraint), but maybe I'm free to choose between them (NB (2) below).-Dhw (classifying the constraints): These were (1) outside constraints imposed by the situation or by Nature...
 
ROMANSH: OK what part of nature is not part of the environment or indeed the universe?-None. That is why I object to your definition. Examples of outside constraints: If I'm in prison (given), I can't choose to go to a football match (situation), but ... if I have free will ... I can choose whether to sing or scream in my cell. I don't have wings (given), so I can't choose to fly (Nature), but I can choose whether to walk or run.-DHW: (2) constraints affecting the decision-making process itself, such as heredity, upbringing, education, illness, accidents, chance encounters.-It's this category which makes free will so difficult to pin down. WHY do I choose raspberry jelly rather than apple crumble, to sing rather than scream, to run rather than walk? To what extent am I driven by inborn, ingrained, uncontrollable factors? Answer: I don't know.
 
Dhw: 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?-ROMANSH: 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.-Your "if" is precisely what we're trying to sort out! If we come to the conclusion that we do have free will, then we quickly see that self and consciousness are not an illusion. I don't see the point of these "ifs".-ROMANSH: 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.-Either we accept the materialist argument that the brain is the source of consciousness, or we allow for the possibility that there is some other form of energy (the "ghost in the machine") which uses the brain to transmit its signals. If you regard the latter as "fatuous", you have opted for the materialist explanation of consciousness. You are entitled to your beliefs. I prefer to wait for the evidence. Possible evidence for a non-material source (apart from all the mental processes we cannot explain, like ideas, emotions, memory etc.) goes back over thousands of years of so-called psychic experiences. We've spent many hours discussing near-death experiences in which patients have obtained information or witnessed events corroborated by independent third parties at a time when the brain was clinically dead. I take such experiences seriously. Maybe you don't. But I'm not coming down on either side. -Dhw: 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.-ROMANSH: 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?-Another "if", but I agree that the practical ramifications are interesting. That hardly proves that the very idea of free will is "nonsense" or "fatuous". I have no default position. I'm putting the case for agnosticism against your apparently fixed position!