Summations Only

To be fair (though I'm not sure to whom), while Dr A introduced the term "man-in-the-street" to the thread, Straggler introduced the notion of considering common views of free will in response to different world descriptions much earlier as definitions were being hashed out. [MSG=35]Apparently, neither of them had any real choice.

In Message 137 Son Goku writes: While I have no argument with these numbers, I think we should not forget to include the element of Chaos Theory leading up to the .001 second information processing. There would appear to be, at an extremely unlikely chance, a minimum of some 10^17 micro-brain wavefunction collapses leading up to the brain processing the "event" - in quotes here because this "event" appears to be a complex collusion of gazillions of collapses that may be, perhaps, slightly more accurately termed a "meaningful subdecision". This seems like a perfect opportunity for Chaos Theory to come in, pound it's steroidized chest, bellow loudly and reek havoc without resistance. Intractable mathematically complete conclusions based on starting conditions determined by quantum dynamics? No - this to me creates indeterminancy in spades. Think of a pachinko game with a ping pong ball falling through 10^17 layers of nails. But there are Attractors in the form of world view feedback rewards.A slight change, even in where a thin bent blade of grass pokes out of waters of the St. Lawrence Seaway, may determine, unlikely as it may not, whether the old indian fisherman on the dock at end of the Seaway's Atlantic mouth is able to pick up the wooden Paddle-To-The-Sea canoe which he carved as a boy on the shores of Lake Nipigon a lifetime ago.Consider Wheat Field With Crows: Vincent Van Gogh painted this picture and then killed himself right there at the scene, or so the story goes. There are 5 crows completely below the horizon, 1 partially below and above, and some 33+ odd others (counting crows anyone?) depending on your interpretation of what is a crow and what is a dark spot in the foreboding sky. Perhaps his extreme mental state would be easier to observe than most, if equipment meeting Modulous' approval was brought to bear on this scene. I thought of this picture to illustrate some relatively easier aspects of the exercise of free will. Here is a man who is experiencing excruciating pain in his mind every second of his life and yet is still able to will this painting into existence.Who among us here would argue - if we could repeat history right up this moment, under the same identical exact matching conditions, external & internal in Vincent's state of mind (about to commit suicide) leading up to Van Gogh starting this painting - that we would get the identical exact same painting every time we repeat? Not me.There is most certainly an indeterminancy. Just his physical ability alone to paint a crow in the exact same spot is a factor. If a crow is too far out of place, Van Gogh would likely fix it. But can he get it exactly where he wants? No, but he can get it "close enough". Yes. Would he always have 5 crows below the horizon? Perhaps, because - like the banana/shit sandwich - he knows what he wants and has "enough" control to do it often enough to remain a painter trying to place 5 below. But everything in the painting can only, at best, wind up being "close enough" to the exact place & color & texture he wants. He has a feedback system working with his inexact muscles and eyes and the rest of his senses. He may even have only a vague idea of what he wants and it isn't until he paints it that he sees and recognizes that this is what he wanted all along.In Message 326, Straggler points to a link, Wiki on Freewill. In this link there is a section, on neuroscience that shows a delay from the time a subject begins brain activity to the time the subjects perceives having made the choice to flip a wrist. In the link to readiness potential we see this: For me, the illusion of freewill is the sensation of that which the individual wants to accomplish happening "close enough" and "often enough" to give a feedback of success in accomplishing their will. It is a sensation that the individual is in control of their will, albeit not perfectly because of micro-indeterminancy and the nature of Chaos Theory's exemplary field data. It is a feedback system born & learned throughout life to support the wants of this individual as tempered by their world view. However, in my opinion, it is no more of an illusion than what all of the other senses provide.Everything in Reality, after all, is always some kind of an illusion to us, ultimately, subjectively, pastiched together as best we can to perceive an assumed existent reality with our imperfect senses. Remember, a primary assumption science must accept is that objective data is trying to tell us the truth about Reality.

Hi xongsmith What about the sunflowers that he painted again and again,or Monet and his lilypads?Several attempts to realize what they want to paint.Enjoy.

Zen Deist writes: But isn't this just counter to the idea of free will - to bring up examples that may be explained away by obsessive compulsive determinism?

Well, the question is, how far can we push a concept and then still be honest in using it?I tell the m-i-t-s: "I have a unicorn". "Show me", he says. After studying it for a while, he says : "I didn't know that unicorns were eleven feet tall and purple and breathe fire", but he concedes that its still a unicorn.But there are clearly limits to this. If what I show him is a black-and-white flightless bird, he would be right in saying "That's not a unicorn, that's a penguin". It would be no use for me to say: "Ah, well, you see how badly your naive notions of unicorns were in need of correction". It's a penguin. I lied.

I've definately lost the plot.....or the penguin....or both.

Hi xongsmith But if it were "obsessive compulsive determinism" would that not drive them to paint the same picture over and over? Instead what we see are slightly different approaches to painting the same subject, and to me this indicates free will in choosing a different view to paint.Now, I spend a fair bit of time entertaining myself with Sudoku puzzles. Each one has a (supposedly) single correct solution, so in one sense I am predestined to find that solution or fail to solve the puzzle. I have a technique that I use to find the solutions, but how it is implemented is fairly random, as I can chose a different sector, row or column to start with, and this choice proceeds with every step until a point is reached where only the last remaining square needs to be filled in.The simplest puzzles yield fairly quickly to the technique, the moderate ones take a little more time to analyze, and the difficult and very difficult ones often require some guessing -- and again I have many options on where to start, often backing up and taking a different starting point. Occasionally I erase all squares that I filled in and start anew.Now I may be "obsessive compulsive" about continuing until I have found a solution, but there are many paths to finding the solution, and the one taken is chosen by free will.Enjoy.

If free-will as commonly conceived is compatible with determinism then what is "The problem of freewill"? Which aspect of freewill is considered problematic? OK. But if you were to ask people if he could have exerted his free-will and NOT robbed the bank thus shaped his future in a different direction what would they say? It's easy to ask a simple question and get a superficially compatibilist answer. But if you dig a little deeper there is just no escaping the fact that people generally see freewill as demanding of genuine ("metaphysically robust") alternative possibilities. I'm not sure why anyone feels the need to deny this.Our popular culture is full of these sort of sci-fi examples. Crash already mentioned the Matrix. But Minority Report springs to mind. And the whole notion of freewill being expressed in popular culture involves choices where more than one outcome is possible whatever has been prophecised or predicted. I agree. But we can't just sweep that confusedness under the carpet if it remains a core feature of their concept of freewill.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It does to me too!! That is why I have described myself as a "Revisionist". I think the common concept of freewill requires revision for it to be philosophically coherent and that such revision is warranted.But if we are revising the terminology we are (by definition) not using the term "free-will" in the same way as the man in the street. Which Dr A also says we should do.My point is that he can't have it both ways. Either we use man-in-the-street terminology and end up with an incoherent concept. Or we don't really apply a man-in-the-street definition and end up with something more coherent and philosophically useful.I support the second. But we (still) can't have it both ways.

But if the man-in-the-street comes up and asks you whether he has freewill or not and you simply reply "Yes" he will go away thinking that he possesses something that both you and I seem to agree just doesn't exist.The sort of freewill he thinks he has is illusory.The question of whether we can salvage enough of what he means by freewill to convince him that he has freewill even despite his notions of "metaphysically robust alternative possibilities" being illusory remains to be seen. But I would expect a great deal of resistance at the very least. And it is far from certain you will ever convince him freewill means what you mean by it.

Hi, Straggler. My speculation was that the formal definition is only incoherent because the man-in-the-street incorrectly identified with it, when, in fact, his practical application of the term indicates adherence to a different definition.Under this logic, Dr Adequate's modification makes the definition better represent the man-in-the-street's actual position than the definition the layman himself preferred.But, I guess it doesn't really matter, since we're just quibbling over what to call it: I'm perfectly happy calling Dr Adequate either a revisionist or typical compatibilist.I think the main argument in support of his position is that it is a better way to communicate with laymen than any alternative. And I think we both agree with this argument.

I think the crux of this debate comes down to one word: "Free."Dr. A, you, me, compatibilisits, determinissts, libertarians, all would probably agree that humans have "will." If will is understood to mean, the ability to carry out that which they desire.from http://www.dictionary.com, the 10th definition of "will" is:

quote:

---

to wish; desire; like: Go where you will. Ask, if you will, who the owner is.
  —dictionary.com

---

The question comes down to what we mean by the word "free." I assert, and have asserted, that the qualifier "free" implies that there are no (or very few) constraints. This is where your link is getting the "metaphysically robust alternative possibilities." There has to be the ability to do other than was done, in order for the will to be free.Dr. A would seem to disagree. I think he would argue that all that is needed for the will to be free si that it is not coerced by an outside force.I think that conception is wrong. I think he is conflating "will" and "free will" to the point that the qualifier would seem not to qualify anything. If something is coerced, it is not the person's desire, wish, or like. It is the desire, wish or like of the one doing the coercion. Thus, coercion removes will, full stop.For there to be any reason to use an adjective, like free, when talking about the will, there has to be a difference between the unmodified word.I guess this is a question for you, Dr. A, and all compatyibilists and revisionists: What is the difference, in your mind, or view, between "will" and "free will"?

... then am I telling the truth or not?As I say, this seems to be the only thing that we're arguing about. But I do mean what he means by it. I disagree with him about the causal factors underlying it.I think that what someone means by something is the set of phenomena associated with it, not the set of causal factors underlying it. I agree with a Viking that there is lightning, even though I disagree with him over whether it was caused by Thor. I agree with a YEC that there are tigers, even though I disagree with him over whether they were caused by God doing magic 6,000 years ago. If I could talk to someone who believed in phlostigon, I wouldn't tell him that wood doesn't burn on the grounds that I don't think it is doing so by emitting phlostigon.I agree with a child who believes in Santa Claus that he gets Christmas presents, even though I disagree with him about who put them there. Although he strongly associates his Christmas presents with Santa and reindeer and sleighbells and a man coming down his chimney as the causal factor, what he means by his Christmas presents are the actual phenomena, the things that he finds in his stocking or under the tree. And so he understands me better if I say: "There is no Santa Claus, your parents put your Christmas presents there", than if I say: "You do not in fact get any Christmas presents".

The man in the street proclaims 'I raised my right arm of my own free will...I have free will.'. Dr A would agree that the man raised his arm of his own free will, and that the man has free will. In that sense, Dr A is going by the man in the street: They both are pointing at the same phenomena and they are both categorizing it as 'free will'. What differs, are some of the beliefs about this phenomena. The man in the street may well believe that the thing he calls free will is free of the deterministic rules of causality in some fashion. Dr A, seeing as there is no evidence supporting this belief, decides not to believe it.They are both pointing at a tiger and calling it a tiger, so even though the man in the street may think that a tiger is the animate spirit of some deity, and even though when he says 'tiger' he is carrying some metaphysical baggage, they are both using the word tiger to refer to the same thing.So yes, I think he can have it both ways. When two people point to the same phenomena and call it the same thing, they are in agreement with one another. Even if one person believes that they are seeing a living god and the other one sees a mere Emperor.abe: And Dr A gets there before me and does it better. Typical.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

But they are both pointing to a concrete, existential thing. Free will, however, is an abstract concept, and as such, one cannot point to something and say "That is free will" such that everyone will agree with them and then can discuss the causality of said phenomenon.With abstract concepts, the definition becomes paramount. If I asked someone to point to "justice" they may point to a court room where a case is being decided, they may point to a posse stringing up a cattle rustler, they may point to an army liberating a people from a tyrant. However, if you ask someone else, they may agree with some of the things the first person pointed to and not agree to some others. What you need to do to resolve this is get to definitions.So, merely pointing to something that both agree is an example of said concept doesn't mean they agree on a fundamental basis.