Free Will

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Free Will

#8621  Postby Cito di Pense » May 17, 2017 4:58 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:when circumstances favour it


O! Great Oracle! Look into your crystal ball! Give us a tiny example of 'when circumstances favour it'. Help us find the sweet spot in exercising 'free will', so that we act fast enough that additional information doesn't become available that could cause us to go back into the unfavorable circumstances of having too much information and/or too little time.

To sum up, you're just expounding on how the world seems to you.

Afternoon very favorable for romance. Try a single person for a change.

Do not drink coffee in early A.M. It will keep you awake until noon.

DavidMcC wrote:When are you going to realise that circumstancers ALONE do not determine our choices.


When you explain how it works with a tiny concrete example that we can dissect to see if you're as right as you seem to think you are.

I thought you would have noticed by now, well back in this thread, how I described concrete examples. Repeatedly, actually.


Then you should have them ready to hand and simple to repeat. If they are useful, why isn't anyone discussing them with you? If they're not simple to reiterate, you certainly haven't managed to introduce any details that anyone else feels like discussing at length. All this means is that the examples and arguments you purport to have presented have not been compelling fodder for discussion. You actually have to say something that provokes discussion of something besides the vague generalities you DO keep repeating tediously.

I do read your posts, hoping that you will show that you have concrete expertise in something besides obscure details of human or computer vision that are decades old, consummately boring to anyone but you. I only comment when your tendency for vague generalization goes right over the top.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 23978
Age: 6
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#8622  Postby DavidMcC » May 17, 2017 6:06 pm

..
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 13801
Age: 63
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8623  Postby felltoearth » May 18, 2017 12:50 pm

felltoearth wrote:Here's one question that comes to mind. Do babies and children have free will? If so, and we view free will as a good thing, why then do adults not let children exercise their free will?

I'm going to bump this as I don't think it's that stupid a question. Do children have free will, and if so, why do adults curtail it?
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 6664
Age: 49

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8624  Postby felltoearth » May 18, 2017 12:54 pm

For later reading and discussion

http://alisongopnik.com/Papers_Alison/C ... 2939v1.pdf

abstract
Our folk psychology includes intuitions about free will; we believe that our intentional acts are choices and that, when such actions are not constrained, we are free to act otherwise. In a series of five experiments, we ask children about their own and others’ freedom of choice and about the physical and mental circumstances that place limitations on that freedom. We begin with three experiments establishing a basis for this understanding at age four. We find that 4-year-olds endorse their own and others’ ability to ‘‘do otherwise’’ only when they or others are free to choose a course of action, but not when others’ actions are physically impossible (Experiment 1), their own actions are physically constrained (Experi- ment 2), and their own actions are epistemically constrained (Experiment 3). We then examine developmental changes in children’s understanding of actions and alternatives that lead to more adult-like free will intuitions. Across two experiments, 6-year-olds, but not 4-year-olds, endorse another person’s (Experiment 4) or their own (Experiment 5) free- dom to act against stated desires. These age-related changes suggest relationships between a belief in free will and other cognitive and conceptual developments in theory of mind, self-control and self-awareness that take place in early childhood.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 6664
Age: 49

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8625  Postby DavidMcC » May 18, 2017 1:57 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:when circumstances favour it


O! Great Oracle! Look into your crystal ball! Give us a tiny example of 'when circumstances favour it'. Help us find the sweet spot in exercising 'free will', so that we act fast enough that additional information doesn't become available that could cause us to go back into the unfavorable circumstances of having too much information and/or too little time.

To sum up, you're just expounding on how the world seems to you.

Afternoon very favorable for romance. Try a single person for a change.

Do not drink coffee in early A.M. It will keep you awake until noon.

DavidMcC wrote:When are you going to realise that circumstancers ALONE do not determine our choices.


When you explain how it works with a tiny concrete example that we can dissect to see if you're as right as you seem to think you are.

I thought you would have noticed by now, well back in this thread, how I described concrete examples. Repeatedly, actually.


Then you should have them ready to hand and simple to repeat. If they are useful, why isn't anyone discussing them with you? If they're not simple to reiterate, you certainly haven't managed to introduce any details that anyone else feels like discussing at length. All this means is that the examples and arguments you purport to have presented have not been compelling fodder for discussion. You actually have to say something that provokes discussion of something besides the vague generalities you DO keep repeating tediously.

I do read your posts, hoping that you will show that you have concrete expertise in something besides obscure details of human or computer vision that are decades old, consummately boring to anyone but you. I only comment when your tendency for vague generalization goes right over the top.

I'm happy to let you look for them, because it's no skin off my nose if you don't understand. What I don't understand is how you managed to know I was repeating generaiities, AND YET you never noticed the concrete examples I sometimes intermingled with them. :scratch:
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 13801
Age: 63
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8626  Postby GrahamH » May 18, 2017 2:25 pm

felltoearth wrote:
felltoearth wrote:Here's one question that comes to mind. Do babies and children have free will? If so, and we view free will as a good thing, why then do adults not let children exercise their free will?

I'm going to bump this as I don't think it's that stupid a question. Do children have free will, and if so, why do adults curtail it?


Suggestions have been made in this topic that free will amounts to being able to imagine potential actions and predict the likely consequences of those actions. Any entity lacking the intelligence or knowledge to imagine future states would not have free will. A baby that has no idea what will happen next could not therefore have free will on those terms. This ties in with the concept of legal responsibility after some age but not before. Consider also diminished responsibility.

If you don't know what you are doing or what will result you are not acting willfully (and therefore lack free will) in respect of those consequences and are not responsible for them.

Does that seem reasonable?

As to adults curtailing what children can do, the adults are exercising the free will caution that the children lack.

In another sense the children have more free will in that they are not so constrained by rules and consequences as are adults. They are free to do what it occurs to them to do without worrying about consequences. They have fewer constraints and therefore more freedom.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 16508

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8627  Postby zoon » May 18, 2017 3:19 pm

felltoearth wrote:
felltoearth wrote:Here's one question that comes to mind. Do babies and children have free will? If so, and we view free will as a good thing, why then do adults not let children exercise their free will?

I'm going to bump this as I don't think it's that stupid a question. Do children have free will, and if so, why do adults curtail it?

Using free will in the legal and social sense (not suggesting any freedom from the laws of nature), having free will means having freedom to choose, being trusted by other people not to make choices which are silly or dangerous or unduly selfish. It's nice to have that freedom of action, and in that sense it's a good thing, but for the group members offering that freedom there's always an element of risk, that the freedom will be misused. Children are too young to be trusted with adult freedoms, they are offered choices they can handle, increasing as they approach adulthood. I have a feeling I may be failing to address your question?
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 2698

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#8628  Postby GrahamH » May 18, 2017 3:31 pm

zoon wrote:
felltoearth wrote: having free will means having freedom to choose, being trusted by other people not to make choices which are silly or dangerous or unduly selfish.


Does it mean that? isn't that the opposite of freedom? If we all do what others think we aught to do we don't have free will, do we?

If the concept is worth a damn surely it must be the freedom to be spontaneous and take risks, to take a leap and see what happens. Otherwise people are just feeling their way along the walls they can perceive.

Perhaps you aren't talking about free will there. Maybe that's about trust in social interactions, where being predicable and following rules is a benefit.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 16508

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8629  Postby DavidMcC » May 18, 2017 3:51 pm

zoon wrote:
felltoearth wrote:
felltoearth wrote:Here's one question that comes to mind. Do babies and children have free will? If so, and we view free will as a good thing, why then do adults not let children exercise their free will?

I'm going to bump this as I don't think it's that stupid a question. Do children have free will, and if so, why do adults curtail it?

Using free will in the legal and social sense (not suggesting any freedom from the laws of nature), having free will means having freedom to choose, being trusted by other people not to make choices which are silly or dangerous or unduly selfish. It's nice to have that freedom of action, and in that sense it's a good thing, but for the group members offering that freedom there's always an element of risk, that the freedom will be misused. Children are too young to be trusted with adult freedoms, they are offered choices they can handle, increasing as they approach adulthood. I have a feeling I may be failing to address your question?

IMO, physical constraints don't affect free will as such, because FW is about what you WANT to do (if you can), not what you are ALLOWED to do.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 13801
Age: 63
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8630  Postby DavidMcC » May 18, 2017 3:54 pm

GrahamH wrote:
zoon wrote:
felltoearth wrote: having free will means having freedom to choose, being trusted by other people not to make choices which are silly or dangerous or unduly selfish.


Does it mean that? isn't that the opposite of freedom? If we all do what others think we aught to do we don't have free will, do we?

...

The trust issue has nothing to do with FW, IMO. Trust is more about freedom of ACTION, than of the will.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 13801
Age: 63
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8631  Postby zoon » May 18, 2017 10:03 pm

GrahamH wrote:
zoon wrote: having free will means having freedom to choose, being trusted by other people not to make choices which are silly or dangerous or unduly selfish.


Does it mean that? isn't that the opposite of freedom? If we all do what others think we aught to do we don't have free will, do we?

If the concept is worth a damn surely it must be the freedom to be spontaneous and take risks, to take a leap and see what happens. Otherwise people are just feeling their way along the walls they can perceive.

Perhaps you aren't talking about free will there. Maybe that's about trust in social interactions, where being predicable and following rules is a benefit.

Most adults are reasonably careful about just how spontaneous and risky their behaviour is, most of the time we stay reasonably within the accepted limits set by the group and the general wish to stay alive and healthy. I don't see that the fact I haven't yet been in prison or run over means that I haven't been exercising choices that are free in the legal and social sense?

I'm a little puzzled by your position here. I supposed you were against the existence of free will in any useful sense, but you appear above to feel that the freedom to be spontaneous does exist and is worth having?

Edited to add: the tags in your post which I've quoted are misplaced, I think I wrote what is there attributed to felltoearth, I've now changed them in this post.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 2698

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8632  Postby GrahamH » May 18, 2017 10:33 pm

zoon wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
zoon wrote: having free will means having freedom to choose, being trusted by other people not to make choices which are silly or dangerous or unduly selfish.


Does it mean that? isn't that the opposite of freedom? If we all do what others think we aught to do we don't have free will, do we?

If the concept is worth a damn surely it must be the freedom to be spontaneous and take risks, to take a leap and see what happens. Otherwise people are just feeling their way along the walls they can perceive.

Perhaps you aren't talking about free will there. Maybe that's about trust in social interactions, where being predicable and following rules is a benefit.

Most adults are reasonably careful about just how spontaneous and risky their behaviour is, most of the time we stay reasonably within the accepted limits set by the group and the general wish to stay alive and healthy. I don't see that the fact I haven't yet been in prison or run over means that I haven't been exercising choices that are free in the legal and social sense?

I'm a little puzzled by your position here. I supposed you were against the existence of free will in any useful sense, but you appear above to feel that the freedom to be spontaneous does exist and is worth having?

Edited to add: the tags in your post which I've quoted are misplaced, I think I wrote what is there attributed to felltoearth, I've now changed them in this post.


The concept of free will seems redundant if people only do what they are told they should do. If we act purely for survival there is surely no greater case of acting under duress, is there? But I'm not a free will advocate. I don't think it's a coherent concept.

Spontaneous? Obviously people sometimes do things they wouldn't have expected to do so there is something we can label 'spontaneous'. I don't read anything metaphysical into that. My point was that following rules and avoiding death are the antithesis of free will. 'Spontaneous notions' are at least free from that.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 16508

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8633  Postby archibald » May 19, 2017 10:11 am

felltoearth wrote:
felltoearth wrote:Here's one question that comes to mind. Do babies and children have free will? If so, and we view free will as a good thing, why then do adults not let children exercise their free will?

I'm going to bump this as I don't think it's that stupid a question. Do children have free will, and if so, why do adults curtail it?



Imo (thanks for posting the study) children can probably no more have free will than an adult can. Or a banana can for that matter.

For their own part (and I think the study authors would agree) children's 'ideas about free will' develop gradually until they gain typically adult views.

As to why the parents constrain 'it' (the kids free will) I would say that it's not the kids' free will they are curtailing, but the kids' behaviour. At the end of the day, this is really not much different to any parent of almost any parenting species.

The difference (it appears) between humans and other species is not that any capacity we have is likely to provide us with any free will. It appears to be the capacity to advance model (imagine) future scenarios which have not happened yet. A bit like the chess-playing computer program 'Deep Blue'. This function, or more properly this function when it crosses a threshold into consciousness (temporarily assuming 'Deep Blue' was not conscious) seems to result in what is probably an illusion of free will.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 8720
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8634  Postby DavidMcC » May 19, 2017 11:30 am

archibald wrote:
felltoearth wrote:
felltoearth wrote:Here's one question that comes to mind. Do babies and children have free will? If so, and we view free will as a good thing, why then do adults not let children exercise their free will?

I'm going to bump this as I don't think it's that stupid a question. Do children have free will, and if so, why do adults curtail it?



...

So, what do you mean, exactly, free will? It surely can't be bioiogical free will, as I defined it earlier in this thread.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 13801
Age: 63
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8635  Postby romansh » May 20, 2017 3:10 pm

DavidMcC wrote: So, what do you mean, exactly, free will? It surely can't be bioiogical free will, as I defined it earlier in this thread.

David biological free will may very well exist ... but it is some compatibilist version that somehow misses the point.

Here is a nose picking free will.

I exert nose picking free will whilst driving when I pick my nose in full knowledge it could be embarrassing should I be observed doing this at traffic lights. I can apply all the fMRI scans etc to the brain to show this is in full accord with physics etc. I can throw a little quantum phenomena into it too.

ergo I have nose picking free will.

And here nose picking free will has completely missed the point.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 1813

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#8636  Postby DavidMcC » May 20, 2017 3:27 pm

romansh wrote:
DavidMcC wrote: So, what do you mean, exactly, free will? It surely can't be bioiogical free will, as I defined it earlier in this thread.

David biological free will may very well exist ... but it is some compatibilist version that somehow misses the point.

..Blah, blah ...

Please explain what is "compatibilist" about biological free will, and why you evidently regard incompatibilism as some sort of "badge of honour".
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 13801
Age: 63
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8637  Postby romansh » May 20, 2017 3:52 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Please explain what is "compatibilist" about biological free will,

Biological free will is compatible with physics (cause and effect even at the quantum level) ... in fact our wills are determined by physics.
I am surprised I have to explain this.
DavidMcC wrote:and why you evidently regard incompatibilism as some sort of "badge of honour".

This further exemplifies your lack of knowledge David.

Hard determinists and libertarians are both incompatibilists. So why would I regard incompatibilism as a badge of honour?
One thing about libertarians though they recognise that hard determinists and libertarians are talking about similar concepts of free will.

Having said that libertarians have given compatibilists a hard time and accused them of word jugglery.
In fact soft determinist was original coined as a pejorative but today is used as a synonym for compatibilist.
We are both determinists. The only exception (in recent memory) seems to James who occasionally sticks in his halfpenny's worth.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 1813

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8638  Postby DavidMcC » May 20, 2017 4:21 pm

romansh wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Please explain what is "compatibilist" about biological free will,

Biological free will is compatible with physics (cause and effect even at the quantum level) ...

That's fine with me. If it wasn't, I would consider that it was impossible to have it.
in fact our wills are determined by physics.

Now, that's where you go wrong. Being compatible with the laws of physics allows for INDIRECT determination of one's will by the laws. This allows for us to have a choice, rather than be the slave of our environment.
I am surprised I have to explain this.

I have encountered various "compatibilisms" over the years, such as "compatible with god", etc. That's why asked. Apparently, you haven't heard of that. Maybe it's another case of language evolution. :dunno:
DavidMcC wrote:and why you evidently regard incompatibilism as some sort of "badge of honour".

This further exemplifies your lack of knowledge David.

Hard determinists and libertarians are both incompatibilists. So why would I regard incompatibilism as a badge of honour?
One thing about libertarians though they recognise that hard determinists and libertarians are talking about similar concepts of free will.

Having said that libertarians have given compatibilists a hard time and accused them of word jugglery.
In fact soft determinist was original coined as a pejorative but today is used as a synonym for compatibilist.
We are both determinists. The only exception (in recent memory) seems to James who occasionally sticks in his halfpenny's worth.

Whatever. It's all what Cito calls "philo-wibble" to me. I suspect that my "lack of knowledge" is really just the changed meaning you have given to the C-word.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 13801
Age: 63
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8639  Postby romansh » May 20, 2017 6:50 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Now, that's where you go wrong. Being compatible with the laws of physics allows for INDIRECT determination of one's will by the laws. This allows for us to have a choice, rather than be the slave of our environment.

We are slaves, if that is the word you want to use, to the processes that go on in our brains.

Your free will is compatible with being a slave to these processes.

For me, being a slave to these processes is a strange use for the phrase free will.

I don't care about god given or supposedly god compatible free will. You can argue with James about that one, should he care to pop by.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 1813

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8640  Postby felltoearth » May 20, 2017 7:01 pm

romansh wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Now, that's where you go wrong. Being compatible with the laws of physics allows for INDIRECT determination of one's will by the laws. This allows for us to have a choice, rather than be the slave of our environment.

We are slaves, if that is the word you want to use, to the processes that go on in our brains.

Your free will is compatible with being a slave to these processes.

For me, being a slave to these processes is a strange use of the phrase free will.

I don't care about god given or supposedly god compatible free will. You can argue with James about that one should he care to pop by.


This is an interesting comment. It assumes a duality between brain and "self." There are a lot of problems with this explanation on the face of it. Maybe a little more explanation is in order to clarify the duality presented.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 6664
Age: 49

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 5 guests