Summations Only

It comes from studying human cognition, and considering the ways that we are different from computers.

"I" being.....?What?Dualists will see "I" as something distinct (but very possibly related) to their physical brains. But what do you mean?

Perhaps, but the "free" part of the word still seems to imply unlimited. Even Dr. A's conception allows limitations. Essentially. As far as I know, the term free will came into being to differentiate it from a will that was under contraints. Had this differentiation never been needed, the term would not have been invented, and this discussion would probably be refering to some other term that "should" have been defined differently. But I'm sure the view is great.

In what way do you think we are demonstrably different from computers?More specifically - In what way do you think our brains are demonstrably different from incredibly complex biological/chemical computers?

Even the most ardent liberterian doesn't demand unlimited freedom. Whose doesn't? I don't think anyone claims that there is anything devoid of any constraints at all. Yeah - But so is the intellectual pain!!

My degree is in Philsophy. I have a BS in BS. This is what is often meant when the debate between free will and determinism occurs. And it is what seems to be meant when normal people talk about free will. They talk about "free choices" and having been able to make a different choice. Under determinism, there wasn't the option of another choice because the chain of causality predicated the choice made. If people say that "Bob could have chosen to do something else," they must mean that he wasn't under the constraints of the chain of causality.

We supposedly speak the same language. So you know as much about the mean of "I" as I do.And sure, language is messy, and full of ambiguities. I don't think it can be disambiguated, so I won't try.

Except for physical limitations, like a person can't decide to just ignore gravity and fly. The common perception is that people can choose to do anything that is not physically impossible. That people may be able to consider outcomes, weigh the pros and cons, and then go one way or the other, even despite the outcome of his calculation.So, in regard to the "raping a nun" argument, a true libertarian would say that everyone could choose to rape the nun and that we're merely deciding that we don't. A determinist would say that for most of us, raping the nun is not actually a choice we could make, barring some sort of damage or alteration to our brain.

It's a long story, and experience in other threads shows that I am unable to communicate it to you.A quick summary, and I will leave it at that - a computer works with defined inputs. A human has to do the defining any inputs used.

My sympathies. Quite so. And what does that have to do with breaking causality? The best evidence from physics does not support that kind of determinism. However, that's a good explanation of why I don't actually think that the compatibilist conception of free will is compatible with a strict determinism.This so called "chain of causality" is a myth based on an idealized oversimplification.

Well then. But the "pre-programming" resulted in me.It is doubtless true that if I was a female spider I'd like to eat my mates. But I'm not, so I don't want to, so I don't. That's what I'd call free will. You seem to want something more, so that my free will is not mine and does not depend on me and is not my will. But then in what sense is it my free will? Then I am at a loss to know why you brought it up. Either the fact that I won't rape a nun is a point, or it isn't. If it isn't, let's drop it. If it is, then your argument, which I can go back and quote if you like, is that I don't have free will because I don't rape nuns because I don't want to. Which is nonsense. No, it's unsubtly limited. It's limited by me. I don't want to rape nuns, so I don't rape nuns. In the context of a discussion of free will, this is about as subtle as a punch in the nose. True. But this is only an argument against free will if you conceive of what I want to do as being a coercive force external to me, like someone holding a gun to my head. But what I want to do is in fact my will.As with my example of J.W.G. and my other similar examples, it only seems an argument against free will if you divide me into two parts. On the one hand, there's a metaphysical me-as-a-patient, who would, left to himself, have libertarian free will, and who might do absolutely anything left to himself, and on the other hand, there's the actual me-as-an-agent, having opinions, wishes, dreams, and desires, sitting on the shoulders of the first-me and forcing him (me) not to eat male spiders or rape nuns, because second-me doesn't want first-me to do so. Then me-number-one has no free will, because he's being coerced by me-number-two. But they are, are they not, the same person?

Thanks. If all the causes, averaged together make it such that the person will choose A, then B really isn't an option despite it seeming to be one from an outside, non-omniscient observer. Choice B was an illusory choice. That is exactly what it indicates. When you look at a person's history, their experiences, coupled with the physical set-up of the current environment, filtered through their genetic predispositions, you'll come to a single outcome, despite how it may appear to someone with a different history and genetics.Now, you can adjust determinism to assume quantum effects in the brain, whcih make other outcomes possible on a proability curve, but at some point the probability curve collapses and only one option is possible. This point might be at the point the action begins, it might be at the point where enough neurons are firing in a certain pattern that even quantum effects are over shadowed, but it will still end up being that the person had no control, in the classical sense, over his choice. Only if you think of it as A causes B causes C. I guess it would be more correct to say the causality web, where causes A, B and C, when averaged cause action X.

Well, you have misunderstood my argument. Look again at my analogy of dinosaurs.I say that it is better to say: "Yes, you have free will. However, there is one point on which your conception of free will needs to be modified in order to be logically coherent", then to say: "You have no free will. However, there are ninety-nine different ways in which your concept of what it means to say "you have no free will" needs to be modified until you understand that when I say that you have no free will I am in fact saying almost exactly what you mean when you say that you do have it."Therefore, I am on the side of ordinary language as it is spoken. I maintain, with the man-in-the-street, that he has free will, although he may be slightly confused about the concept; rather than maintaining that he has no free will but using that term in such a way that he will have not the faintest idea what it is I'm trying to say. What would I be saying? "You have no free will, because you make your own decisions based on your own state of mind"? He would be excused for staring at me blankly or bursting out laughing, because I would just have asserted (understood in plain language) that he has no free will based on the rationale that (in plain language) he does. It is that view that requires a sophisticated redefinition of free will. My view does not.---And even the man-in-the-street's idea of free will is going to depend on what questions you ask him. If you ask him: "Does free will mean having will so free that it is independent of your state of mind", then surely he will say "no". But he might say "yes" when asked questions which, when looked at carefully, logically imply that. But that is no reason for me to prance around declaring that he has no free will. That's just being a dick.---And this is what annoys me about philosophers, or amateur philosophers. They go strutting around saying "there is no such thing as proof"; "there is no such thing as truth"; "there is no such thing as free will"; "there is no such thing as objective reality"; "there is no such thing as the self"; when if they spoke in plain language they would say: "Your notions of proof, truth, free will, objective reality and the self need polishing up a bit and refining, a job that we philosophers will be happy to do for you". But denying the very existence of these things because naive philosophical ideas of these things don't quite make sense is ... is dickish, for want of a better term. When scientists discovered that water was not an element but a compound, did they go around saying: "There is no such thing as water"? They did not.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You're conflating words again. Decision implies multiple possible outcomes. Determinism asserts that there are not multiple outcomes, only the appearance of them. So, a determinist wouldn't say what you seem to think they're saying. They would say, "You make no decisions, you merely take an action that there was no possibility of you not taking based on physical rules and laws." Thus, you have no free will.The common perception of free will is inherently dualistic. It assumes that the part of you that you identify as "you" is your mind, your thoughts, your emotions, and that this part fo you is not physical, that it transcends the physical, and so can initiate an action in your body that is caused by this immaterial "you" and no other causes, and that this immaterial "you" is not caused to do this by anything physical.Essentially, it says that your mind, your will, your soul, is like a driver and your body is merely the vehicle. "You" are not your body.I'm glad that you see this is crap, or nonsense. That makes you a determinist. Why you then proceed to continue to assert that a person still has free will, as long as you define free will in a specific way, boggles my mind.I can only think of three reasons to do this:
1) Dishonesty. You're trying to get people who believe in free will as it is commonly known to agree with you because of similar terms, despite meaning something completely different.2) You're unwilling to just admit that free will doesn't exist. You've either so attached to the term that you can't let it go, or you're waging a semantic war against history and popular meaning to change the definition to suit your own needs when a new term would work just as well.3) You're just ignorant of what people actually mean when they say free will. I tend not to assume this one in your case, but who knows.

i think you've forgotten about Fred.EvC Forum: Biology is Destiny?If you get Fred's tumour, are you the same you with the same free will or are you a diferent you with a different freewill? If your definition of freewill is simply being able to do what you want to do, with Fred's tumour you want to do rather different things don't you?