Thread: Free will and determinism

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

How can there be freedom of anything if it is determined?

Exactly.

Why single out will?

It is the only concept that I have run into that people have used as an argument for human spearation from the universe. Which is wrong.

To answer you question as to definition, I'm not sure and I don't have a problem with that. It has something to do with goal directed behavior and an availability of assumable states to achieve a reasonable subset of those goals.

From "Gravitation" By Wheeler, Thorne and Misner:

Here and elsewhere in science, as stressed not least by Henri Poincare, that view is out of date which used to say, "Define your terms before you proceed." All the laws and theories of physics, including the Lorentz force law, have this deep and subtle character, that they both define the concepts they use and make statements about these concepts. Contrariwise, the absence of some body of theory, law and principle deprives one of the means properly to define or even to use concepts. Any forward step in human knowledge is truly creative in this sense: that theory, concept, law, and method of measurement - forever inseparable-are born into the world in union.

So you don't have a definition of the term you are arguing in favor of?

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Exactly.

Precisely.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

It is the only concept that I have run into that people have used as an argument for human spearation from the universe. Which is wrong.

It's not even wrong. It's stupid. I don't see what it has to do with this conversation though.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

So you don't have a definition of the term you are arguing in favor of?

I gave you a rough definition. Do you have a problem with it? I also gave you some pretty heavy hitting justification for not letting the lack of a precise definition impede me in arguing for the rough one.

The advantage of my rough definition is that it is actually applicable to systems that we can find in the real world. It could be applicable to an artificial neural network. It's applicable to chimpanzees. It's applicable to dolphins. It's applicable to humans. To a lesser degree, it's probably applicable to squirrels and birds.

It's not even wrong. It's stupid. I don't see what it has to do with this conversation though.

That's the generally accepted definition of 'Free Will' where I come from, and this is an argument about Free IWll, right?

I gave you a rough definition. Do you have a problem with it? I also gave you some pretty heavy hitting justification for not letting the lack of a precise definition impede me in arguing for the rough one.

The advantage of my rough definition is that it is actually applicable to systems that we can find in the real world. It could be applicable to an artificial neural network. It's applicable to chimpanzees. It's applicable to dolphins. It's applicable to humans. To a lesser degree, it's probably applicable to squirrels and birds.

I still think that free will is a pointless term and I would never use it.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

I still think that free will is a pointless term and I would never use it.

That's your right. But do you use free in any other context? Otherwise, the question remains. Why single out will. The answer you gave earlier was irrational.

Nope. I never use 'free' to describe events independent from deterministic causes, or the universe.

That doesn't answer my question. Of course you don't. You believe in determinism.

^ This.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

That doesn't answer my question. Of course you don't. You believe in determinism.

Well yes, I suppose. I use 'free' a lot when talking about personal freedoms such as speech, abortions, et al. Not really the same though, since the context is completely different. Words have multiple meanings in English bro :O Phrases usually don't, though.