Current state of the debate between free will and determinism in philosophy and neuroscience

[Eise]

On 10/27/2023 at 3:28 PM, iNow said:

Perhaps not a relevant point, but something I considered upon reading your post. We are the universe expressing itself as a human being for a little while.

Nice poetic expression! So far I agree. But then...

On 10/27/2023 at 3:28 PM, iNow said:

No need for that 2nd point, really. 

Obviously, yes, it is needed. Being a system, say with input and output, not looking at the output is quite an omission. More concrete, omitting the causal influence of human agents, you only have half of the story. The question is not how our motivations came into existence, but how I am able to act based on them: can I act according to them, or not? 

16 hours ago, iNow said:

Choice implies freedom to do otherwise, which for reasons already noted I reject. 

... and there is the trouble with modal logic. Say, I am in a restaurant with a few friends. The restaurant has 3 different dishes, A, B and C. I choose dish C. I can choose C, because it is on the menu. And the proof is, that I get dish C. Could I have done otherwise? Well, yes, and the proof is that one of my friends took dish A. So if I had wanted dish A, I could have taken it. 

Now I go with the same friends to another restaurant, which only has dishes A and B. In a very true sense, I cannot choose dish C, because it is not on the menu. Now, this is not a question of free will or not. Dish C is just a none existing option. 

Another week, I go with a group of vegetarians to the first restaurant, and C is a dish with meat. One of my friends is an 'aggressive vegetarian', and he forbids me to take dish C. So the option for dish C exists, I want to take it, but I am overruled by this aggressive vegetarian. So, acting against my own will, I take dish A. 

So the meaning of 'could have done otherwise' is: if I had wanted to do X, I would have been able to do X. And that is just a normal counterfactual statement, such as 'the water would have boiled, if it would have been heated long and strong enough'. These are perfect true/false statements.

 

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:47 PM, TheVat said:

Compatibilists achieve their reconciliation of determinism and free will by means of changing what is meant by free will. 

Yep. And I claim that this definition is just closer to our experience of free will. One should get rid of ideological remnants in what many people associate with the concept of free will. My definition is direct and simple: if you can act according your beliefs and wishes, you have free will. 

• no 'could have done otherwise' in some metaphysical meaning
• no contradiction with naturalism
• no contradiction with determinism
• no 'uncaused agents'
• fits to how we experience free will

On 10/28/2023 at 5:47 PM, TheVat said:

I just find it simpler to skip that and say there is no scientific evidence of free will in the classic meaning. 

Yes, because the classic meaning is wrong. It does not apply to anything in our experience. The classic meaning was born from Christian theology, and has obviously still to shake off its metaphysical contents.

On 10/28/2023 at 5:47 PM, TheVat said:

It doesn't mean I may not personally entertain some metaphysical idea that minds somehow transcend that, but I would not bring that to the science table.

No necessity for metaphysics if you take a definition that is grounded in our daily experience.

[Eise]

10 hours ago, martillo said:

I hope you could solve your complications to be able to have clear thoughts.

This is a joke. iNow has a pretty clear viewpoint, I just do not agree with him. You, on the other side, are hiding your inconsistencies behind words ('restricted', 'conditioned'). Unless you can illustrate them with more or less real life examples it is not clear what you mean. They are just words, not concepts, as you use them. (But I don't know if you know the difference between words and concepts...)

8 hours ago, martillo said:

The problem I have in our discussion is that we don't agree even in the meaning of some words.

So this falls completely back on you.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Eise

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, martillo said:

There's no other way. You stay with determinism or with the will. They are mutually exclusive. 

So, what you're saying is, I can't change my mind in the tyrrany of choice; now that's irony, isn't it???

[martillo]

3 hours ago, Eise said:

You, on the other side, are hiding your inconsistencies behind words ('restricted', 'conditioned'). Unless you can illustrate them with more or less real life examples it is not clear what you mean. They are just words, not concepts, as you use them. (But I don't know if you know the difference between words and concepts...)

You didn't follow the discussion appropriately. Now I have got free of those words. What I'm considering at this point is just "will" without qualifiers as @iNow asked:

On 10/29/2023 at 9:35 AM, martillo said:

On 10/29/2023 at 8:26 AM, iNow said:

Not if you believe adding qualifiers like “restricted” or “conditioned” in front of the term “will” is an any way useful here

That would be fine for me. I could state then:

The "will", defined as "the possibility to make choices", does exist sometimes.

Would that be right for you?

There would be no "free will" nor "determinism", just "will" does exist sometimes.

 

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, what you're saying is, I can't change my mind in the tyrrany of choice; now that's irony, isn't it???

No, you can choice to be a compatibilist if you want. I'm just pointing out that "will" and "determinism" are mutually exclusive by the definition of them. Is up to you how to deal with this. @Eise and @iNow are talking about redefining "will". I don't think that would be possible. If you can't make choices is not a "will", is something else.

4 hours ago, Eise said:

My definition is direct and simple: if you can act according your beliefs and wishes, you have free will. 

That's not free will. That's freedom to act. No opposition to do something. It is not about making a choice which is the definition of "will".

Edited October 30, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

12 hours ago, martillo said:

I think you could be over-complicating some things. Particularly, the definition of "will" or the meaning of "choice" and "decision"

The things which are the result of chemical interactions, all of which occur prior to conscious awareness of them, you mean?

1 hour ago, martillo said:

@iNow are talking about redefining "will". I don't think that would be possible. If you can't make choices is not a "will", is something else.

It's not my intent to redefine anything, only to explain it with knowledge rooted in how our minds work. As we can't make choices and IMO only post-dictively apply a narrative pretending that we have, I suggest we simply call it "experience" and not "will," as it's most certainly not "free" given my framing of the issue. 

[TheVat]

57 minutes ago, martillo said:

That's not free will. That's freedom to act. No opposition to do something. It is not about making a choice which is the definition of "will".

An interesting distinction.  Perhaps it is more precise to say that Eise's free will is freedom to act in accord with one's desires and wants.  @Eise can order the mushroom tofu casserole because it is a choice on the menu and he wants to eat vegan today.   I understand his definition but it seems to kick the question of cause farther down the road: what caused those desires and wants?  

 

[Eise]

55 minutes ago, martillo said:

The "will", defined as "the possibility to make choices", does exist sometimes.

So sometimes we are not determined? That makes you a believer in libertarian free will. 

But on the other side you write:

1 hour ago, martillo said:

I'm just pointing out that "will" and "determinism" are mutually exclusive by the definition of them. Is up to you how to deal with this.

Italics by me.

1 hour ago, martillo said:

That's not free will. That's freedom to act.

Yes, it is. The will is free to act. Simply said: you can do what you want, but you cannot want what you want: that is a logical absurdity. Would you call somebody free who makes free decisions, but is never able to act according these decisions?

[martillo]

20 minutes ago, TheVat said:

An interesting distinction.  Perhaps it is more precise to say that Eise's free will is freedom to act in accord with one's desires and wants.  @Eise can order the mushroom tofu casserole because it is a choice on the menu and he wants to eat vegan today.   I understand his definition but it seems to kick the question of cause farther down the road: what caused those desires and wants?  

 

Good point. What matters in this case is that @Eise had in some situation the possibility to make a choice. This means that "will" existed for him. Now, if you want to know what leaded @Eise to have made his choice then you probably must ask @Eise his reasons. That would be another subject. The important thing for us now is that someone has the possibility to make choices at sometimes. This means "will" exist.

8 minutes ago, Eise said:

Yes, it is. The will is free to act. Simply said: you can do what you want, but you cannot want what you want: that is a logical absurdity. Would you call somebody free who makes free decisions, but is never able to act according these decisions?

No. Freedom to act is one thing. Freedom to make a choice is something different.

Edited October 30, 2023 by martillo

[Eise]

13 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 I understand his definition but it seems to kick the question of cause farther down the road: what caused those desires and wants?  

And that is my point: we do not have to look there. You are who you are, because of your genes, your culture, your biography, etc. E.g., when somebody does not like chicory, she cannot do much to change that. But she can act according to her preferences: just not eating them, even if if it is a real option (see my restaurant example here).

[martillo]

29 minutes ago, Eise said:

That makes you a believer in libertarian free will. 

Glad to agree with Kant and Descartes for instance. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics))

Edited October 30, 2023 by martillo

[Eise]

6 minutes ago, martillo said:

 

11 minutes ago, Eise said:

Yes, it is. The will is free to act. Simply said: you can do what you want, but you cannot want what you want: that is a logical absurdity. Would you call somebody free who makes free decisions, but is never able to act according these decisions?

No. Freedom to act is one thing. Freedom to make a choice is something different.

Please answer my question.

[martillo]

1 minute ago, Eise said:

Please answer my question.

14 minutes ago, Eise said:

Would you call somebody free who makes free decisions, but is never able to act according these decisions?

Absolutely no, of course. We can imagine that would be the situation of a slave. The slave is not free at all. But that is a matter of rights someone have at some time. this does not mean "will" does not exist in the world. Actually there are no slaves nowadays in general I think. There exist "will" in the world but is not available all times and not for everybody at the same time in practice. The "will" is always constrained by the conditions of the situation. We can say we cannot always make use of it, is not always available, but we can say that "will" does exist in the world.

[Eise]

1 minute ago, martillo said:

Glad to agree with Kant and Descartes for instance.

I am glad to agree with Hume and Daniel Dennett. 

Descartes was a dualist, who maintained that there are 2 substances, res extensa (~ matter), and res cogitans (~ soul). Because the soul exists independently of the physical world, we can be free. Do you still agree with Descartes?

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant describes how our knowledge of the world is 'filtered' by the so-called categories. One of them is causality. That means we see the world as determined. But then in his ethical work, The Critique of Practical Reason, he states that to understand our moral reasoning, we need 3 concepts: immortailty, freedom and God. Do you still agree with Kant?

 

8 minutes ago, martillo said:

36 minutes ago, Eise said:

Would you call somebody free who makes free decisions, but is never able to act according these decisions?

Absolutely no, of course.

But you said 'will' is a question of decisions and choices. And now you must refer to the possibility to act on those decisions and choices.

[martillo]

1 minute ago, Eise said:

Descartes was a dualist, who maintained that there are 2 substances, res extensa (~ matter), and res cogitans (~ soul). Because the soul exists independently of the physical world, we can be free. Do you still agree with Descartes?

Yes.

2 minutes ago, Eise said:

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant describes how our knowledge of the world is 'filtered' by the so-called categories. One of them is causality. That means we see the world as determined. But then in his ethical work, The Critique of Practical Reason, he states that to understand our moral reasoning, we need 3 concepts: immortailty, freedom and God. Do you still agree with Kant?

Not sure which is the point here. You mention determinism, freedom, immortality, moral and God all at the same time. By the way I haven't studied Kant in deep. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The things which are the result of chemical interactions, all of which occur prior to conscious awareness of them, you mean?

One thing is the existence of the possibility to make choices, that's the "will". Other thing is what caused our decision in a particular situation considering all the conditions present and the result of our thinking at the time. Different things.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

It's not my intent to redefine anything, only to explain it with knowledge rooted in how our minds work. As we can't make choices and IMO only post-dictively apply a narrative pretending that we have, I suggest we simply call it "experience" and not "will," as it's most certainly not "free" given my framing of the issue. 

I don't understand why you say" we can't make choices"...

18 minutes ago, Eise said:

I am glad to agree with Hume and Daniel Dennett. 

There are so much philosophers, so much philosophies... May be everyone has some reason. I agree with someones in some things and could disagree in other ones. Not so easy...

[Eise]

10 minutes ago, martillo said:

16 minutes ago, Eise said:

Descartes was a dualist, who maintained that there are 2 substances, res extensa (~ matter), and res cogitans (~ soul). Because the soul exists independently of the physical world, we can be free. Do you still agree with Descartes?

Yes.

So you agree that because of the uncaused soul, we can act freely? That is what Descartes says.

12 minutes ago, martillo said:

Not sure which is the point here. You mention determinism, freedom, immortality, moral and God all at the same time.

Because Kant mentions them.

13 minutes ago, martillo said:

One thing is the existence of the possibility to make choices, that's the "will". Other thing is what caused our decision in a particular situation considering all the conditions present and the result of our thinking at the time. Different things.

Please explain with a real life example (at least we can imagine such a situation as occurring in real life). 

Is 'will' determined? Always? Or sometimes not?

52 minutes ago, martillo said:

The important thing for us now is that someone has the possibility to make choices at sometimes.

Sometimes? Sometimes the will is determined, and sometimes it is not? Please, give an example here as well.

[martillo]

6 minutes ago, Eise said:

So you agree that because of the uncaused soul, we can act freely? That is what Descartes says.

6 minutes ago, Eise said:

Because Kant mentions them.

As I said in the previous post (I was editing when you posted):

26 minutes ago, martillo said:

There are so much philosophers, so much philosophies... May be everyone has some reason. I agree with someones in some things and could disagree in other ones. Not so easy...

 

I would need time to answer your other questions. Too much questions at the same time, you know?

[studiot]

I think this thread has reached an impasse.

Everyone seems agreed that the definition of free will is vital to the proceedings.

Yet no one seems to have the free will to give an inch.

Each with their own definition of free will seems comvinced that theirs is 'all right' and the others are 'all wrong'.

A most unlikely situation.

 

A couple of questions/situations to test your definitions on.

 

1)

Two runners, teams, contestants are competing but there can be only one winner in say the Wimbledon Tennis Championship or the World Cup.

Yet all have 'the (free) will to win'.

So many do not win, despite the will

2)

In one sense a man can have the free will to murder another.

But in another sense this is obviously against laws imposed by society.

So free will prevails despinte restrictions.

 

Incidentally @Eise  this second example contridicts or at least dilutes you anti christianity argument about the concept.

 

[martillo]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

So you agree that because of the uncaused soul, we can act freely? That is what Descartes says.

Our decisions are a result of our thinking capability. Everybody agree we all can think,isn't it? This has nothing to do with the possible dualism soul-body. We have some freedom to act sometimes due to the existence of the "will". If no "will" no freedom at all.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Please explain with a real life example (at least we can imagine such a situation as occurring in real life). 

No need for a special example. It happens in all cases.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Is 'will' determined? Always? Or sometimes not?

"Determined will"? That sounds contradictory.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Sometimes? Sometimes the will is determined, and sometimes it is not? Please, give an example here as well.

Is you talking about a determined will, not me. Please don't rephrase what I say.

[studiot]

12 minutes ago, martillo said:

Our decisions are a result of our thinking capability.

Not always as  I have demonstrated. We try, but we do not always succeed.

[martillo]

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

1)

Two runners, teams, contestants are competing but there can be only one winner in say the Wimbledon Tennis Championship or the World Cup.

Yet all have 'the (free) will to win'.

So many do not win, despite the will

No, nobody has "the free will to win". May be they have the free will to decide to compete but not to win. To win is not just a matter of a choice. Is the result of the competition.

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

2)

In one sense a man can have the free will to murder another.

But in another sense this is obviously against laws imposed by society.

So free will prevails despinte restrictions.

The social laws does not physically impede people to do something. They impose responsibility on the actions. If we do things we are responsible for the consequences.

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

Not always as  I have demonstrated. We try, but we do not always succeed.

I think you didn't succeed in demonstrating that.

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, martillo said:

The social laws does not physically impede people to do something.

Not even a tiny bit ?

 

13 minutes ago, martillo said:

No, nobody has "the free will to win".

So perhaps they have the will to loose ?

 

This is not a black and white subject, it is more complicated than that or there would be nothing to argue about.

Edited October 30, 2023 by studiot

[martillo]

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

Not even a tiny bit ?

The social laws would be a constraint in the decisions. The laws make we think in the consequences before doing some things and we would have the will to obey them or not.

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

So perhaps they have the will to loose ?

I don't believe in fair ones with the will to lose.

Seems there's a confusion in will with intention or desire...

That's why we first must agree in the definition of "will" before any further discussion.

Edited October 30, 2023 by martillo

[studiot]

14 minutes ago, martillo said:

The social laws would be a constraint in the decisions. The laws make we think in the consequences before doing some things and we would have the will to obey them or not.

I don't believe in fair ones with the will to lose. Seems there's a confusion in will with intention or desire...

What do you think will means ?

 

It means 'I want....   '

 

It does not mean I can have or I do have or even (pun intended) I will have.

[martillo]

24 minutes ago, studiot said:

What do you think will means ?

 

It means 'I want....   '

 

It does not mean I can have or I do have or even (pun intended) I will have.

I have considered the "will" as the possibility to make a choice not the choice I made. When I say "I want..." it is assumed we have already made a possible choice if there was one. 

Seems you are agreeing in @Eise conception of "will". I'm considering that sometimes we make a choice before deciding what we want.

May be here is the knot of all of our discussion...

 

I have found something about that could help in defining things (https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/will-the/v-1) :

As traditionally conceived, the will is the faculty of choice or decision, by which we determine which actions we shall perform. As a faculty of decision, the will is naturally seen as the point at which we exercise our freedom of action – our control of how we act. It is within our control or up to us which actions we perform only because we have a capacity to decide which actions we shall perform, and it is up to us which such decisions we take. We exercise our freedom of action through freely taken decisions about how we shall act.

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by martillo

[studiot]

2 hours ago, martillo said:

As traditionally conceived, the will is the faculty of choice or decision, by which we determine which actions we shall perform. As a faculty of decision, the will is naturally seen as the point at which we exercise our freedom of action – our control of how we act. It is within our control or up to us which actions we perform only because we have a capacity to decide which actions we shall perform, and it is up to us which such decisions we take. We exercise our freedom of action through freely taken decisions about how we shall act.

What plain rubbish.

 

What does that have to do with the faculty of choice ?

If and only if you do have options then you have the faculty of choice.

That does not mean you have any will at all.

If you exercise one of those choices that particular choice and no other is your will.

That still does not mean you actually realise or achieve that choice, only that you try to follow that particular path.

 

Taking my competitive example if the competitor did not want to want what did they want ?  To loose ?

What other choices are there ?

And even if they did loose why does that preclude them wanting to win right up to the finishing line ?

 

It is the will to win that drives them on.

 

How is that will a faculty of choice ?