Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

But you are saying it and making an assertion that he gets picked up on. If floo thinks free will exists why shouldn't she have to argue for it in the same way as Alan?

We are simply accepting the fact that animals give the appearance of having free will in the same way that we do ... which is what Alan is trying to deny.

[Nearly Sane]

Actually, free will could probably do with a separate thread - I'd tend towards the compatibilist view (as expounded by Dennett and others). That, of course, makes it meaningful from a mortal, human point of view but nonsensical from the point of view of an omnipotent and omniscient god.

We've had a number but this thread has worked as a sort of moveable feast on topic and contains most of the  more recent postings. Since one of the prime aspects of Alan's position is that free will exists, for someone to agree with him by using the term seems to me that they should be open to the same scrutiny as he is on it.


I think unless we present a model that isn't either based on an assumption of cause, randomness or a combination of the two, compatibilism is essentially a word game.

[Nearly Sane]

We are simply accepting the fact that animals give the appearance of having free will in the same way that we do ... which is what Alan is trying to deny.

So when floo said that animals had free will, she didn't mean that? And neither you nor floor believe there is any good argument for free will, despite her using the term in that way?

[Leonard James]

But you are saying it and making an assertion that he gets picked up on. If floo thinks free will exists why shouldn't she have to argue for it in the same way as Alan?

Because as you well know that argument ends in stalemate ... so what is the point of wasting time on it when IT ISN'T THE POINT OF WHAT ALAN IS CLAIMING.

I am not going to get bogged down in another argument on the subject with you, because I have done it before and wasted too much time. 

[Nearly Sane]

Because as you well know that argument ends in stalemate ... so what is the point of wasting time on it when IT ISN'T THE POINT OF WHAT ALAN IS CLAIMING.

I am not going to get bogged down in another argument on the subject with you, because I have done it before and wasted too much time. 

So you, or in this case floo, should be treated differently from Alan on a specific point because you don't want to make the argument? Again why not say that to Shaker when he starts to argue on the existence of free will with Alan?
Oh and the existence of free will is a central part of Alan's claim, adding that other animals have it wouldn't defeat it his position properly.

[Leonard James]

So when floo said that animals had free will, she didn't mean that? And neither you nor floor believe there is any good argument for free will, despite her using the term in that way?

I can't speak for Floo, but as far as I am concerned we all have it. The evidence is sufficient for me ... and I am using my free will in deciding NOT to answer any more of your nitpicking posts on it. Go waste somebody else's time on the subject if it pleases you so much. 

[Nearly Sane]

I can't speak for Floo, but as far as I am concerned we all have it. The evidence is sufficient for me ... and I am using my free will in deciding NOT to answer any more of your nitpicking posts on it. Go waste somebody else's time on the subject if it pleases you so much. 

And again you want to be treated differently from Alan Burns on a central part of his claim

Look I get it that you like floo and want to stand up for her, but you like Alan. It was floo's comment I picked up, and I don't see why she should be treated differently from Alan when it comes to making assertions.

Further it's precisely you attempting to say what floo meant, I.e. speak for her that covered a substantial amount of this exchange.

[floo]

Blimey NS you and my husband have a lot in common, he keeps picking me up on nearly every statement I make.

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

[Stranger]

I think unless we present a model that isn't either based on an assumption of cause, randomness or a combination of the two, compatibilism is essentially a word game.

I have yet to see anybody convincingly argue for any other ingredient apart from determined and random. However, I'm happy with the term "free will" provided it is clear what is meant. I disagree about compatibilism being a word game; I do have free will in the sense that I can make choices, we just have to be realistic about what we mean by "I" and recognise that it has to make its decisions somehow.

Alan clearly thinks free will can work in the presence of an omni- god, which is why I keep asking him to explain what he means.

[Nearly Sane]

Blimey NS you and my husband have a lot in common, he keeps picking me up on nearly every statement I make.

And do you apply that when Shaker or bluehillside do the same to Alan Burns? Do you come on here and tell them to stop nitpicking with Alan? Why is it, that you seem to want to have two standards?

[Nearly Sane]

I have yet to see anybody convincingly argue for any other ingredient apart from determined and random. However, I'm happy with the term "free will" provided it is clear what is meant. I disagree about compatibilism being a word game; I do have free will in the sense that I can make choices, we just have to be realistic about what we mean by "I" and recognise that it has to make its decisions somehow.

Alan clearly thinks free will can work in the presence of an omni- god, which is why I keep asking him to explain what he means.

But in that sense a computer makes choices, and we don't add in the baggage of 'free will' onto that. What in the term free will as you use it is 'free'?

[Alan Burns]

Just to clarify my own position.

I consider free will to be the ability of the conscious self (the soul) to have the freedom to make a deliberate choice which is not constrained by the deterministic rules of science.

So an act of free will does have a cause, but the cause derives from conscious will rather than pre determined rules of science and is evidence that our universe is not entirely deterministic, but can be manipulated by acts of conscious free will.

[Gordon]

Just to clarify my own position.

I consider free will to be the ability of the conscious self (the soul) to have the freedom to make a deliberate choice which is not constrained by the deterministic rules of science.

This seems like bald assertion followed by begging the question since you are assuming your premis (that we have a soul) into your conclusion (that we have free will as a consequence of having a soul). You haven't made a case for either.

So an act of free will does have a cause, but the cause derives from conscious will rather than pre determined rules of science and is evidence that our universe is not entirely deterministic, but can be manipulated by acts of conscious free will.

Now it becomes silly since you are claiming a 'cause' where you haven't even demonstrated your assertion of souls or free will never mind 'cause' that, if I read correctly, you claim is separate from 'cause' in the naturalistic sense, which is another assertion.

I realise you believe this, Alan, but your approach is inherently fallacious ( as has often been observed).

[Alan Burns]

This seems like bald assertion followed by begging the question since you are assuming your premis (that we have a soul) into your conclusion (that we have free will as a consequence of having a soul). You haven't made a case for either.

Now it becomes silly since you are claiming a 'cause' where you haven't even demonstrated your assertion of souls or free will never mind 'cause' that is, if I read correctly, you claim is separate from 'cause' in the naturalistic sense, which is another assertion.

I realise you believe this, Alan, but your approach is inherently fallacious ( as has often been observed).

My claim is simply based upon the reality perceived by most humans that their conscious self has control over what they do.

[Gordon]

My claim is simply based upon the reality perceived by most humans that their conscious self has control over what they do.

I'm sure this is what you claim, but when you say 'conscious self' it seems you mean 'soul': correct me if I'm wrong. Then you need to demonstrate that not only do humans reliably and comprehensively perceive reality but also that the impression we may have that we are acting freely is actually the case.

Since it seems you think that cause derives from will and is unrestrained by naturalism then this is claim of having knowledge - so what form does this knowledge take?

[Stranger]

I consider free will to be the ability of the conscious self (the soul) to have the freedom to make a deliberate choice which is not constrained by the deterministic rules of science.

So an act of free will does have a cause, but the cause derives from conscious will rather than pre determined rules of science and is evidence that our universe is not entirely deterministic, but can be manipulated by acts of conscious free will.

This doesn't answer the question of how 'free will' works. You've just moved it from the material to "the soul" as if that's an answer. This "soul" still has to arrive at its "deliberate choice" somehow.

How does it work?

Unless you can answer that, you have not demonstrated that the brain can't make the same decision in the same way.

[ippy]

So you, or in this case floo, should be treated differently from Alan on a specific point because you don't want to make the argument? Again why not say that to Shaker when he starts to argue on the existence of free will with Alan?
Oh and the existence of free will is a central part of Alan's claim, adding that other animals have it wouldn't defeat it his position properly.

N S it must take you hours to buy a train ticket given the choices there are in and on our rail system; I wouldn't want to be in a queue behind you.

Why do you insist on turning the simplest of things anyone posts into an pedantic overcomplicated mess, I have to admit although I mostly go along with your views, I think, I have largely given up bothering with your posts, I'm 100% certain this won't bother you in the least, I have noticed I'm not the only one posting here that shares my view.

ippy

[ippy]

Blimey NS you and my husband have a lot in common, he keeps picking me up on nearly every statement I make.

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

Really Floo what you actually meant and should have written was__________

ippy

[Leonard James]

Just to clarify my own position.

I consider free will to be the ability of the conscious self (the soul) to have the freedom to make a deliberate choice which is not constrained by the deterministic rules of science.

No matter what action the "deterministic rules of science" prompt, we can always choose to do otherwise, if only to show that we CAN. That is free will in action, and it is nothing more than an ability to act on our feelings or not. Why you think we need to invent a soul to explain the ability is obvious ... you are trying to shoehorn your "God" into the equation, but it won't work - it's superfluous.

[Nearly Sane]

No matter what action the "deterministic rules of science" prompt, we can always choose to do otherwise, if only to show that we CAN. That is free will in action, and it is nothing more than an ability to act on our feelings or not. Why you think we need to invent a soul to explain the ability is obvious ... you are trying to shoehorn your "God" into the equation, but it won't work - it's superfluous.

If we can choose something freely them the determinism at th base of science wouldn't work, since action isn't caused by anything.

[Gordon]

No matter what action the "deterministic rules of science" prompt, we can always choose to do otherwise, if only to show that we CAN. That is free will in action, and it is nothing more than an ability to act on our feelings or not. Why you think we need to invent a soul to explain the ability is obvious ... you are trying to shoehorn your "God" into the equation, but it won't work - it's superfluous.

I agree with you last point, Len, regarding Alan's 'souls' theory and also I accept that in day-to-day living we operate as if our choices are free in terms of, say, choosing 'x' rather 'y' in getting through the events of each day.

However, I'm not sure that beyond viable mundane choices 'free will' isn't an illusory oxymoron of sorts, since 'free' implies no constraints and yet naturalism imposes some by default, and 'will' operates within those constraints relating to my current and preceding circumstances and my future options and of course the impact of external factors outwith my control.

In that sense I'm not sure I really have 'free will' in that constraints apply whether I like it or not and I am exposed to events and influences I can't control and may not even recognise or fully appreciate. 

[Alan Burns]

This doesn't answer the question of how 'free will' works. You've just moved it from the material to "the soul" as if that's an answer. This "soul" still has to arrive at its "deliberate choice" somehow.

How does it work?

Unless you can answer that, you have not demonstrated that the brain can't make the same decision in the same way.

You have missed my earlier postings which postulated that the quantum events which are perceived to have no apparent cause could be caused by something which is not detectable by current science.  So could human will, or God's will, have control over quantum events?  There is currently no way of proving this of course, but it is a possibility.

[Alan Burns]

In that sense I'm not sure I really have 'free will' in that constraints apply whether I like it or not and I am exposed to events and influences I can't control and may not even recognise or fully appreciate.

There can be no halfway house in this.  Either events are totally controlled by scientific determinism, in which case there can be no freedom of choice, or there is something which can have influence from outside the laws of science.  It is not just a matter of constraints, which implies boundaries, but total control over which nothing but the laws of science can dictate.

[Nearly Sane]

There can be no halfway house in this.  Either events are totally controlled by scientific determinism, in which case there can be no freedom of choice, or there is something which can have influence from outside the laws of science.  It is not just a matter of constraints, which implies boundaries, but total control over which nothing but the laws of science can dictate.

Just a clarification on this determinism doesn't take into account possible random occurrences but random occurrences also don't allow for free will.

[torridon]

My claim is simply based upon the reality perceived by most humans that their conscious self has control over what they do.

but you are also failing in that to take due account of research which demonstrates that the 'conscious self' is always the last guy to get to know anything.  Any decision made has always already been made by the time 'we' become 'aware' of it.