So you think you have free will

I think he's saying some aspects of human characteristics are irreducible? Braude has a paper on this in his book Crimes of Reason, about the incoherence of trying to associate things like friendliness with a particular clump of nerves.
Agreed. I am not sure that "nothing" is a synonym for irreducible, though.

I read the paper earlier this month but I'll have to revisit it a few times before I can really grasp the argument. I feel like there are some obvious objects that might've been more clearly addressed, but then I think a lot of philosophy papers might benefit from some illustrative diagrams or even a few cartoons...
Nah... philosophy needs to be boooring :D
 
@Paul: Good stuff, will have to think on how to reply. I feel like we're talking past each other on the determinism/randomess thing.
I think the problem is that some people feel as if they can imagine a decision-making method that is neither deterministic nor random. But I've never gotten a coherent description of such a thing. The problem is pushed down to some kind of agent, but then the method is never described. A few people have said they are comfortable with deterministic/random decision making, as long as it's done by some kind of personal agent. I don't think that satisfies most people who want libertarian free will.

~~ Paul
 
I think the problem is that some people feel as if they can imagine a decision-making method that is neither deterministic nor random. But I've never gotten a coherent description of such a thing. The problem is pushed down to some kind of agent, but then the method is never described. A few people have said they are comfortable with deterministic/random decision making, as long as it's done by some kind of personal agent. I don't think that satisfies most people who want libertarian free will.

~~ Paul

I still don't see why we should accept this dichotomy of determinism and randomness. Harris stated this in his book Free Will as well, and I don't see any satisfactory explanation there either.

Additionally I don't think anyone has given a good account of what randomness would entail for our understanding of causality. I *think* this is what Super Sexy is getting at as well, though from his perspective (as I understand it) the division of events is itself illusory as is linear time. So there is no free will as the term is being defined because there is no linear time.
 
I still don't see why we should accept this dichotomy of determinism and randomness. Harris stated this in his book Free Will as well, and I don't see any satisfactory explanation there either.
I think we need to accept it because if something is not determined, then it is not based on the prior state of affairs. If it is not, then it is arbitrary. If there is a prior state of affairs, even buried down deep in some personal agent, and that state of affairs determines my decision, then the decision is deterministic. If, on the other hand, the agent flips a coin, then the decision is random. I cannot conceive of a third method by which an agent could make a decision.

Additionally I don't think anyone has given a good account of what randomness would entail for our understanding of causality. I *think* this is what Super Sexy is getting at as well, though from his perspective (as I understand it) the division of events is itself illusory as is linear time. So there is no free will as the term is being defined because there is no linear time.
I agree that all these things are quite fuzzy. But I wouldn't use the fuzziness of randomness versus causality as an excuse for postulating some third thing buried in the randomness. Not that you are.

~~ Paul
 
I think we need to accept it because if something is not determined, then it is not based on the prior state of affairs. If it is not, then it is arbitrary.
Can't the decision making algorithm (perhaps a dynamically adjusted algorithm) still be influenced/affected by the past state of affairs without being completely determined by it?

Cheers,
Bill
 
Last edited:
Can't the decision making algorithm (perhaps a dynamically adjusted algorithm) still be influenced/affected by the past state of affairs without being completely determined by it?
Yes, but I can't think of anything for the nondeterministic portion of the algorithm to be except random. Perhaps we use the prior state of affairs to narrow it down to three choices and then pick one at random. Or perhaps we take the prior state of affairs and perturb it randomly, then use the new state to make a deterministic choice. Or perhaps we use all the factors in the prior state except one, which we choose at random, and then make a deterministic decision. There are infinite possibilities, but I'm not able to escape determinism and randomness in some combination.

~~ Paul
 
I don't need to do that. I can simply point out that random means not determined. Either the event is determined by the prior state of affairs, or it is not determined by anything and is therefore random, completely arbitrary, without cause. Of course, some events can be partly determined and partly random. There is no logical room for a third kind of decision-making method.

I don't think you can give a coherent description of a decision made in a way that is neither determined nor not-determined.

This is a petition of principle, because it assumes that aims to demonstrate. If I start from the dichotomy events with agency / events without agency, then free will exists, exemplified by the agency. The other events are non-free events. Are events with agency deterministic or random? Captious question, because determinism / random are categories from another paradigm not applicable to agent paradigm.
 
This is a petition of principle, because it assumes that aims to demonstrate. If I start from the dichotomy events with agency / events without agency, then free will exists, exemplified by the agency. The other events are non-free events. Are events with agency deterministic or random? Captious question, because determinism / random are categories from another paradigm not applicable to agent paradigm.
Excellent. So now please describe how---within the agent paradigm---the agent makes a decision that is neither based on the current state of affairs nor accomplished with a coin flip. It is not sufficient simply to assert that the agent's decisions are free, because you have left "free" undefined.

~~ Paul
 
So now please describe how---within the agent paradigm---the agent makes a decision that is neither based on the current state of affairs nor accomplished with a coin flip. It is not sufficient simply to assert that the agent's decisions are free, because you have left "free" undefined.

I said that free will has nothing to do with deterministic or random, so it makes no sense what you ask: free will is a primitive in the agent paradigm. If I say free will is "deliberate actions", you'll ask me to define "deliberate" and so on to infinity. In order that it makes no sense to discuss this so many times already discussed.
 
I said that free will has nothing to do with deterministic or random, so it makes no sense what you ask: free will is a primitive in the agent paradigm. If I say free will is "deliberate actions", you'll ask me to define "deliberate" and so on to infinity. In order that it makes no sense to discuss this so many times already discussed.
I said nothing about determinism or randomness. I asked how these deliberate actions can be something other than based on the current state of affairs or determined by coin flip. The fact that I can keep digging down and you cannot come up with anything other than new undefined terms suggests that there is no bottom to your paradigm. Proposing an agent does not automatically include some method of making free choices.

Forget about determinism and randomness, forget about the state of affairs and coins. Please just describe how this agent makes decisions. We agree that the decisions result in actions.

~~ Paul
 
I said nothing about determinism or randomness. I asked how these deliberate actions can be something other than based on the current state of affairs or determined by coin flip.

You contradict yourself:

"based on the current state of affairs" = determinism according to your.

"determined by coin flip" = randomness.

There is not a method to decide. We decided basing on the past, but we are not determined by the past.
 
You contradict yourself:

"based on the current state of affairs" = determinism according to your.
You don't have to interpret it that way. I'm just using that phrase to mean that the decision is based on things that happened before.

"determined by coin flip" = randomness.

There is not a method to decide. We decided basing on the past, but we are not determined by the past.
You don't have to interpret it that way. I'm just using that phrase to mean the decision is arbitrary.

If the decision is based on the past but not predictable, what is the extra decision-making factor that varies the decision given the same past history?

~~ Paul
 
Yes, we are talking about free(dom) will. But using this word tells me absolutely nothing about the extra decision-making method that you are thinking about. You are saying "I have free will because my decisions are free," which is simply circular.

With the same state of affairs, how can I make two different decisions in a manner that is not simply a coin flip?

~~ Paul
 
Because your mind builds two (or more) different information objects and then actualizes one.

No. With the same state of affairs our decision will always be the one that it was. And there is no second try.

No matter if we had conjured up several options in our mind; We discarded some of them, and choose one.
 
Back
Top