ughaibu wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

archibald wrote: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.

You tell it like it ughaibu! Why don't you get onto these muppets at Stamford and explain to them what all philosophers mean by free will? They obviously didn't get the memo.

Our survey of several themes in philosophical accounts of free will suggests that a—perhaps the—root issue is that of control. Clearly, our capacity for deliberation and the potential sophistication of some of our practical reflections are important conditions on freedom of will. But any proposed analysis of free will must also ensure that the process it describes is one that was up to, or controlled by, the agent.
Fantastic scenarios of external manipulation and less fantastic cases of hypnosis are not the only, or even primary, ones to give philosophers pause. It is consistent with my deliberating and choosing ‘in the normal way’ that my developing psychology and choices over time are part of an ineluctable system of causes necessitating effects. It might be, that is, that underlying the phenomena of purpose and will in human persons is an all-encompassing, mechanistic world-system of ‘blind’ cause and effect. Many accounts of free will are constructed against the backdrop possibility (whether accepted as actual or not) that each stage of the world is determined by what preceded it by impersonal natural law. As always, there are optimists and pessimists.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#3

So, there is nothing in that quote about free will requiring that there be no prior causes, is there?
So what was the point of posting it? To demonstrate that your reading comprehension is as bad as Archibald's?

ughaibu wrote:But nobody thinks that things are happening in the brain without prior causes, neither compatibilists nor incompatibilists. So there is nothing to explain!

GrahamH wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

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

You tell it like it ughaibu! Why don't you get onto these muppets at Stamford and explain to them what all philosophers mean by free will? They obviously didn't get the memo.

Our survey of several themes in philosophical accounts of free will suggests that a—perhaps the—root issue is that of control. Clearly, our capacity for deliberation and the potential sophistication of some of our practical reflections are important conditions on freedom of will. But any proposed analysis of free will must also ensure that the process it describes is one that was up to, or controlled by, the agent.
Fantastic scenarios of external manipulation and less fantastic cases of hypnosis are not the only, or even primary, ones to give philosophers pause. It is consistent with my deliberating and choosing ‘in the normal way’ that my developing psychology and choices over time are part of an ineluctable system of causes necessitating effects. It might be, that is, that underlying the phenomena of purpose and will in human persons is an all-encompassing, mechanistic world-system of ‘blind’ cause and effect. Many accounts of free will are constructed against the backdrop possibility (whether accepted as actual or not) that each stage of the world is determined by what preceded it by impersonal natural law. As always, there are optimists and pessimists.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#3

So, there is nothing in that quote about free will requiring that there be no prior causes, is there?
So what was the point of posting it? To demonstrate that your reading comprehension is as bad as Archibald's?

It demonstrates that some philosophers don't take for granted that we can tell if "agents enact choices". Unlike you they clearly state the controversial issue at hand, that of control / agency that you merely assume.
If you failed to comprehend it take another look for comments on "cause and effect" and "accepted or not".

archibald wrote:can other animals' brains plan ahead and select options from a menu of scenarios?

ughaibu wrote:To repeat, it says nothing about free will requiring that they be no prior causes, does it?

archibald wrote:

ughaibu wrote:But nobody thinks that things are happening in the brain without prior causes, neither compatibilists nor incompatibilists. So there is nothing to explain!

Oh look.
"Free means uncaused."
http://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will

archibald wrote:Look, you said, "so do you think that our thoughts/conscious decisions are completely controlled by these "prior causes" "

I do, yes. Do you not?

I don't care what 'these' refers to, as if there were 'some situations', just take it out. And the inverted commas. and the forward slash.

Do you or do you not think that our thoughts and conscious decisions are completely controlled by prior causes?

DavidMcC wrote:Only sometimes

archibald wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Only sometimes

Right. so tell me how anything, anything at all, even a component of a thought or process, in my brain, manages to be uncaused.

DavidMcC wrote:

archibald wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Sometimes, I find I spontaneously recall something, without any obvious jog of my memory.

Good for you.

It means I think that nothing happens without prior cause, even though you seem to be claiming (bizarrely) that I can predict the future with my causeless brain activity.
Maybe you hadn't understood, and no doubt you will blame me for that.

archibald wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Only sometimes

Right. so tell me how anything, anything at all, even a component of a thought or process, in my brain, manages to be uncaused.

DavidMcC wrote:

archibald wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Only sometimes

Right. so tell me how anything, anything at all, even a component of a thought or process, in my brain, manages to be uncaused.

The problem remains that you haven't said what you would regard as a "prior cause", in spite of my question in the pevioism post.

archibald wrote:Typing out the word 'spontaneous' is not very impressive. I can type anything. Look: 'uncaused'. There. I typed it.

DavidMcC wrote:

archibald wrote:Look, you said, "so do you think that our thoughts/conscious decisions are completely controlled by these "prior causes" "

I do, yes. Do you not?

That's a trick question, because it hinges on what counts as a "prior cause". For example, does an idea coming out of the unconscious without a memory-jogging experience to trigger it count as a prior cause, or not?

archibald wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

archibald wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Only sometimes

Right. so tell me how anything, anything at all, even a component of a thought or process, in my brain, manages to be uncaused.

The problem remains that you haven't said what you would regard as a "prior cause", in spite of my question in the pevioism post.

No, the problem remains that you are obfuscating. A prior cause is anything that precedes and causes. Could be anything. Lots of things. Could be a photon of light entering the eye. Doesn't matter. You just need to explain how anything can be uncaused and stop waffling.

DavidMcC wrote:But I have already mentioned uncaused memory recall.....

DavidMcC wrote:

archibald wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

archibald wrote:

Right. so tell me how anything, anything at all, even a component of a thought or process, in my brain, manages to be uncaused.

The problem remains that you haven't said what you would regard as a "prior cause", in spite of my question in the pevioism post.

No, the problem remains that you are obfuscating. A prior cause is anything that precedes and causes. Could be anything. Lots of things. Could be a photon of light entering the eye. Doesn't matter. You just need to explain how anything can be uncaused and stop waffling.

But I have already mentioned uncaused memory recall, for Pete's sake. You are the one who should stop obfuscating.

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

archibald wrote:Look, you said, "so do you think that our thoughts/conscious decisions are completely controlled by these "prior causes" "

I do, yes. Do you not?

That's a trick question, because it hinges on what counts as a "prior cause". For example, does an idea coming out of the unconscious without a memory-jogging experience to trigger it count as a prior cause, or not?

Surely that depends on how ideas come forward, how ideas are formed and so on. If it's a consequence of the total physical state of the brain that that state is obviously part of the prior state. If you have something else in mind that is not a prior state then tell us what it is.

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

archibald wrote:Look, you said, "so do you think that our thoughts/conscious decisions are completely controlled by these "prior causes" "

I do, yes. Do you not?

That's a trick question, because it hinges on what counts as a "prior cause". For example, does an idea coming out of the unconscious without a memory-jogging experience to trigger it count as a prior cause, or not?

Surely that depends on how ideas come forward, how ideas are formed and so on. If it's a consequence of the total physical state of the brain that that state is obviously part of the prior state. If you have something else in mind that is not a prior state then tell us what it is.

It was not a prior state if it was not based on previous experience.