archibald wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Speculation, Counselor.

Indeed. Though to be fair, they do do experiments on this sort of thing. Encoding of memories and so on.

archibald wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:You say 'prediction' as if you think 'prediction' is happening.

But it so is.

And best of all, it's reportable!

GrahamH wrote:Value judgements might be applied after the fact, but deliberation is precisely to sort better from worse by predicting consequences, isn't it? Deliberation is before it's too late.

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Value judgements might be applied after the fact, but deliberation is precisely to sort better from worse by predicting consequences, isn't it? Deliberation is before it's too late.

I think deliberation (let's say it's the running of simulations) can be retrospective too.

Plus, I can feel bad about doing something before I've done it. Ask several prostitutes.

Cito di Pense wrote: "Some do, and some don't" is not good enough.

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Why? An idea occurs to you unbidden, not obviously triggered by something else. Isn't that a prime candidate for free will, something of your own making not tied to current circumstances? If our spontaneous thoughts are not free will how can we possibly have free will? By filtering through current conditions, applicable regulations and so on?

If there's any 'free' surely it has to be in the deliberations, the 'degrees of freedom' in the system?

I doubt if any conscious flash can be 'unbidden', even if not 'obviously' triggered.

archibald wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote: "Some do, and some don't" is not good enough.

Well, the key ones are reportable. Or so we'd like to think. Hence the primacy of the word 'conscious' in language. Anything else just has a prefix attached at the front end.

See also: the word 'woman'.

GrahamH wrote:How can deliberation produce free will? It involves more or less extensive estimation of what might follow from option A, B or C. Selection is biased to wards the 'better' outcomes and away from the 'worse'. We could see it as mapping the territory to find the best route from here to there. I don't see any freedom of will in it, only greater awareness of constraints.

GrahamH wrote:Any conscious flash is 'unbidden' by definition. You can't decide to be inspired in 3, 2, 1, NOW!

I'm not saying there a case for saying inspiration is free will, only that if any thought we have is free will that surely is. It has no evident dependence on anything else. It's timing and content pop into being seemingly from nothing. If we then deliberate on it we tie it down, prune it, make it fit.

archibald wrote:'mapping the territory to find the best route from here to there' is arguably the unusual thing which only we can do

GrahamH wrote:If we then deliberate on it we tie it down, prune it, make it fit.

Cito di Pense wrote:

archibald wrote:'mapping the territory to find the best route from here to there' is arguably the unusual thing which only we can do

No. Assuming our conclusion is the thing which only we can do. It's a dubious distinction.

You know, like, 'best' is assuming-the-conclusion. I wouldn't be so cross with you if you were less transparent. Instead I'd berate you for obscurantism. The best alternative is for us to shut the fuck up.

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:How can deliberation produce free will? It involves more or less extensive estimation of what might follow from option A, B or C. Selection is biased to wards the 'better' outcomes and away from the 'worse'. We could see it as mapping the territory to find the best route from here to there. I don't see any freedom of will in it, only greater awareness of constraints.

Taking my new compatibilist hat off for a second, I agree with you. Putting it back on, 'mapping the territory to find the best route from here to there' is arguably the unusual thing which only we can do, or do pretty well (not wanting to be greedy and insult an orang utan) and is arguably a sort of freedom. It's just ......drum roll.....passive.

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Any conscious flash is 'unbidden' by definition. You can't decide to be inspired in 3, 2, 1, NOW!

I'm not saying there a case for saying inspiration is free will, only that if any thought we have is free will that surely is. It has no evident dependence on anything else. It's timing and content pop into being seemingly from nothing. If we then deliberate on it we tie it down, prune it, make it fit.

You're the last person I expected to be arguing for that. Too much use of the word 'seemingly' and synonyms.

archibald wrote:
Best as in most useful.

archibald wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Will you please stop this nonsense about free will being an illusion, unless you can show me a neurological experiment that I can't demolish as being just as flawed as Libet's. Ie, one that satisfies my requirement that the participants actually have to think, rather than just stare into space and mark time.

David, how would it matter? Even if consciousness does play a role in more deliberated decisions (involving the appraisal of various predicted/simulated options) which I don't think is a daft idea at all (in fact I might easily agree that it likely does happen this way, and maybe not just by veto, but by options being selected from a menu of deliberated calculated options) your problem, or our problem if we are to find meaningful free will, just moves up a level to ask, what causes the simulations, the appraisal of them and most crucially of all, what has control over that process? What supervises the supervisor?

So, you can call a process like that 'conscious control' (possibly even biological will if you must) but it's not freely decided conscious control, it's automated conscious control.
...

GrahamH wrote:I not sure there is anything uniquely human about it.

GrahamH wrote:We could agree there is a sort of freedom in it, in opening up more complex behaviours, tool use etc. But I don't see how it fits the sort of free will you have been discussing.

GrahamH wrote:What do you think I'm "arguing for"? Maybe you missed the opening sentence?

DavidMcC wrote:A. What do you mean by "free", in that case. Everything seems to hang on what the "free" is free of/from.

archibald wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:A. What do you mean by "free", in that case. Everything seems to hang on what the "free" is free of/from.

Free from prior causation, I suppose.

ughaibu wrote:

archibald wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:A. What do you mean by "free", in that case. Everything seems to hang on what the "free" is free of/from.

Free from prior causation, I suppose.

So, a strawman definition of "free will" of no interest to anyone involved in the free will discussion. Well done.

archibald wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:A. What do you mean by "free", in that case. Everything seems to hang on what the "free" is free of/from.

Free from prior causation, I suppose. Given that I can't see how anything could be that, I think outright free will, free free will if you like, active free will perhaps, is out. Today I'm running with passive free will. Apparently, I've turned into a compatibilist. It's very annoying. I'm half hoping it will wear off.

archibald wrote:... Though your system may now make a different passive selection, if you are determined enough.

DavidMcC wrote:OK, so do you think that our thoughts/conscious decisions are completely controlled by these "prior causes", then, or do you, as I do, think that they leave some room for conscious thought to make a difference to decisions "off its own bat", even if it is informed by memory other than the rather limited "working memory".