Free will and things I dont see anyone has noticed

[Zelebg]

Only a Determinist would have to assume they'd have do the same thing. And if they did not, it would devastate any argument for Determinism. But the problem is that your "experiment" cannot be done, so it's all speculation.

It is thought experiment. Speculation is conclusion drawn from it, and you conclude "only a Determinist would have to assume they'd have do the same thing". But suppose the world is not deterministic. Does your free choice then depends on your identity, on randomness, perhaps both, or what? Surely, determinism or not, it must only depend on identity (and circumstances), otherwise it can not be called free.

[henry quirk]

"The first one is more likely"

Why?

#

"Genuine free will is supernatural; you can rearrange nature at will."

First, not understanding a principle doesn't make it magic.

Second, how does "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion" equate with "rearrang(ing) nature at will"?

[Zelebg]

For a person that is trying to convince us that free will doesn't exist, you sure spout a lot of obvious fiction.

I'm not saying we have no free will, rather that is impossible for there to be two states, and is still not clear that one single state can be called 'free' or not. In other words, lacking ability to choose otherwise does not confirm we have no free will.

I can put it like this as well - if we rewind the time thousand of times and you make the same choice every time, it does not mean you have no free will, it just means your identity was the same every time, as expected. Therefore, definition of free will as "ability to choose otherwise" is wrong, because choosing otherwise requires changed or different identity, what I call 'multiple personality disorder'.

[henry quirk]

I'm confused, uncertain what you think on the subject.

Please, clarify for me: do you (believe you) have free will?

[Zelebg]

I'm confused, uncertain what you think on the subject.

Please, clarify for me: do you (believe you) have free will?

I believe we have insufficient information, wrong definition, and deep semantic problem, all of which prevents me to actually form an opinion. I am undecided, but I can argue for both. However, first of all I am trying to establish some common language and few basic premises we can all agree on, so that we are sure we understand each other and are talking about the same thing.

[Immanuel Can]

Only a Determinist would have to assume they'd have do the same thing. And if they did not, it would devastate any argument for Determinism. But the problem is that your "experiment" cannot be done, so it's all speculation.

It is thought experiment.

Well, yes. But even a thought experiment needs to have data available to it, even only hypothetically. Otherwise, there's no grounds for coming to any conclusions based on it.

Speculation is conclusion drawn from it, and you conclude "only a Determinist would have to assume they'd have do the same thing". But suppose the world is not deterministic.

I do suppose that. In fact, I was suggesting that the burden of proof is on the Determinist, because EVERYBODY acts as if free will is true...like you're doing, right now.

Does your free choice then depends on your identity, on randomness, perhaps both, or what? Surely, determinism or not, it must only depend on identity (and circumstances), otherwise it can not be called free.

I'm not sure what you can mean by "depend on identity." It seems to me that "identity" has to do with the particular thing that one is...do you mean instead "consciousness"? Or "personality," perhaps?

Normally, one thinks of "identity" as being one property of a person or thing, but "volition" as quite another. For example, something that has no volition at all still has identity. A rock has identity. But it has no volition.

Free will is a volitional property, obviously. Identity is the same, regardless of one's volition: it's still you, even if you're not exercising free will at a given moment.

So I'm a little unclear on what you mean there.

[bahman]

Our decisions are either because of a reason or not. We are free in the second case and not in the first case.

[SpheresOfBalance]

For a person that is trying to convince us that free will doesn't exist, you sure spout a lot of obvious fiction.

I'm not saying we have no free will, rather that is impossible for there to be two states, and is still not clear that one single state can be called 'free' or not. In other words, lacking ability to choose otherwise does not confirm we have no free will.
OK, I understand your point. But I see that free simply means that it's not bound by any force, that while we can be compelled to make a particular choice, we actually are free to make any of many choices if we so choose, or not, because "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

I can put it like this as well - if we rewind the time thousand of times and you make the same choice every time, it does not mean you have no free will, it just means your identity was the same every time, as expected. Therefore, definition of free will as "ability to choose otherwise" is wrong, because choosing otherwise requires changed or different identity, what I call 'multiple personality disorder'.

[henry quirk]

"I believe we have insufficient information, wrong definition, and deep semantic problem..."

But how does it seem to you, Z?

Leave aside the dissections and assessments of philosophy: does it seem to you that you self-direct, at least some of the time, or does it seem to you that you are merely pushed and pulled through your day?

Do you deliberate, choose, and act, or do you merely react?

[henry quirk]

"Our decisions are either because of a reason or not. We are free in the second case and not in the first case."

So, when confronted by a problem, and as I assess the problem, deliberate over the problem, arrive at a solution, then attempt to enact the solution, I'm not acting freely? Because I act with reason (that I sussed out for myself)?

And: if I just fling myself at the problem without a thought about the problem, I'm free?

If this is what you mean: I can't disagree more.

[Zelebg]

I'm not sure what you can mean by "depend on identity." It seems to me that "identity" has to do with the particular thing that one is...do you mean instead "consciousness"? Or "personality," perhaps?

By identity I mean that it includes personality, includes memories, the way you think, the way you process sensations, everything that makes you you. In other words, it is a blueprint for the algorithm which computes your choices as output given your state of mind as input. Can we agree?

[Zelebg]

Our decisions are either because of a reason or not. We are free in the second case and not in the first case.

There is a context where that is true, but doesn't look like the context I am talking about. This is why establishing some common language frist is paramount.

OK, I understand your point. But I see that free simply means that it's not bound by any force, that while we can be compelled to make a particular choice, we actually are free to make any of many choices if we so choose, or not, because "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Yes, 'free' can be understood any way in the context of free will, and that is why I want to equate 'identity' with 'will', as its source and what defines it. In the context of identity it becomes clear what 'free' means. It means the only absolutely free personal choice is the one determined solely by one's personality or identity. It also means you are slave to your own personality, bound to be yourself with only option to escape by going crazy, and in that context you are not really free, but that is exactly what having a free will should mean.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Our decisions are either because of a reason or not. We are free in the second case and not in the first case.

There is a context where that is true, but doesn't look like the context I am talking about. This is why establishing some common language frist is paramount.

OK, I understand your point. But I see that free simply means that it's not bound by any force, that while we can be compelled to make a particular choice, we actually are free to make any of many choices if we so choose, or not, because "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Yes, 'free' can be understood any way in the context of free will, and that is why I want to equate 'identity' with 'will', as its source and what defines it. In the context of identity it becomes clear what 'free' means. It means the only absolutely free personal choice is the one determined solely by one's personality or identity. It also means you are slave to your own personality, bound to be yourself with only option to escape by going crazy, and in that context you are not really free, but that is exactly what having a free will should mean.

Well I see that knowledge is a major player in free will. Hence the saying: Knowledge is power. And then there's my revision of, "ignorance is bliss," which I've changed to: "Ignorance is only seemingly bliss within the minds of the ignorant, as understood by those knowledgeable of that particular area of ignorance."

[Zelebg]

So when I say you can not choose otherwise because your choice is determined by who you are, you may ask, is that not the same thing as determinism?

Neo:
But if you already know, how can I make a choice?

The Oracle:
Because you didn't come here to make the choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you made it.

I wander what was the real point of these lines in the move, but anyway they perfectly fit here. In the moment it is already too late, you have already made the choice by becoming who you are by that point in time. You make real "choice" after you make choice by reflecting upon it, by understanding it, evaluating it... and by doing so changing your identity, improving, learning, for the next time.

Now, how much can be said for that thought process, that introspection to be 'free', as opposed to also be determined by your identity, your DNA in a sense? Do you really choose your thoughts? Or they just appear in your head already chosen by your identity, your other self who also does all the rest in your body, like pumping your heart, breathing for you, growing your nails... why would you mind if this guy is also making your choices for you? He is you after all, isn't he?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not sure what you can mean by "depend on identity." It seems to me that "identity" has to do with the particular thing that one is...do you mean instead "consciousness"? Or "personality," perhaps?

By identity I mean that it includes personality, includes memories, the way you think, the way you process sensations, everything that makes you you.

Okay. But I'd opt for "consciousness" or even "soul" instead of using the word "identity" there. "Identity" is to vague, I think. You seem to want to include the conscious processes in there, the personal qualities, not just the fact of the identity.

In other words, it is a blueprint for the algorithm which computes your choices as output given your state of mind as input. Can we agree?

No, I like that wording less. "Blueprint" is something non-conscious, more like the DNA. "Computes" is an analogy with computers, but computers don't think or have self-awareness. I would tend away from those two analogies. It seems to me that they don't capture consciousness as an idea at all.

But I think I can guess what you're after. "Soul" or "personality" or "consciousness," or perhaps even "rational faculties" might be better ways to capture it, I'm thinking.