What are the benefits of understanding our free will?

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, geordief said:

Again ,Stringjungky gave up smoking some 5 or more years ago and those who try to motivate people like him to quit an addictive habit often (I think) say that you have succeeded in your change of behaviour when you identify in your own mind as a "non-smoker"

 

I quit some 30/40 years ago but I don't meet that criterion and still miss the habit ,especially the offering of a cig to a friend or a stranger. 

 

If you give me a clue ,perhaps I could think of a counter-example?

 

You are exercising free will because even though you you still have the occasional urge, you are consistently acting contrary to strong, emotive and visceral desires... your instinct. 

Take a dog for a walk and a bitch in season walks passed.....

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I was going to disagree but no matter how hard I try I can't force my fingers to type a negative response.  So I guess we don't have free will.

Are you ever going to actually present a relevant argument?

Shit or get off the pot, pretty please... 🙏

20 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Take a dog for a walk and a bitch in season walks passed.....

I love dogging too... 😇

A neg, lol, I guess someone doesn't get the joke... 🙄

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Are you ever going to actually present a relevant argument?

Some self-reflection on this post wouldn't go amiss.

[dimreepr]

Just now, StringJunky said:

Some self-reflection on this post wouldn't go amiss.

Ohh, do tell???

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Ohh, do tell???

Look at your words and apply them to yourself.

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Look at your words and apply them to yourself.

Well, I started this thread with the premise that we understand free will well enough to be able to make use of that knowledge (a thought experiment). In the OP I presented 'one' possible route.

And, basically, ever since I've been batting off either, "but we don't understand free will", or "we already understand free will well enough thank you"...

Only one person in this entire thread that has legitimately answered the OP is @Eise, so forgive me if I call for legitimate arguments only please... It is my topic... 😣

Edited November 30, 2023 by dimreepr

[Bufofrog]

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Are you ever going to actually present a relevant argument?

The only argument is there is no real evidence on whether we have free will or is the future already determined.  Based on the lack of any evidence to guide us I will have to go with gut instincts.  It feels like I have free will so that's what I'm going with.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

The only argument is there is no real evidence on whether we have free will or is the future already determined.  Based on the lack of any evidence to guide us I will have to go with gut instincts.  It feels like I have free will so that's what I'm going with.

Ohh FFS!!!

[Eise]

3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

The only argument is there is no real evidence on whether we have free will or is the future already determined.

False dichotomy. When you know that there are many philosophers who are compatibilists, then you should know that determinism and freedom of the will are not a priori contradictory. But one should not take a useless definition, that in the questions in which free will or not play an important role, does not help at all: things like blaming, praising, guilt, punishment etc. Sticking to an old-fashioned definition, based on metaphysical assumptions, coming forth from a Christian background, and is not coherent, just makes no sense. 

[Bufofrog]

15 minutes ago, Eise said:

False dichotomy. When you know that there are many philosophers who are compatibilists, then you should know that determinism and freedom of the will are not a priori contradictory.

I think they are.

I see I got a down vote.  I guess someone didn't like my WAG at an unanswerable question.  Do we have freewill?  I don't know, nor do I care and there is no real answer the question anyway.  We can only go in circles arguing.  Very boring for me.  I'm out but you guys have fun. 

[AIkonoklazt]

On 11/29/2023 at 3:40 AM, studiot said:

 

Mechanisms are where a structure is underdetermined, so has one or more degrees of freedom, so is 'free' to take up a range of positions.

Does the mechanism therefore possess 'free will ?

 

Note for @Alkonoklazt  Computer systems and programs also conform to this underdetermined/overdetermined/uniquely determined  classification.

 

Don't know why the @function is not working properly ?

Underdetermination isn't really freedom but unknown causes. It points to unaccounted-for elements in a model.

[studiot]

16 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Underdetermination isn't really freedom but unknown causes. It points to unaccounted-for elements in a model.

Yes I readily acknowledge your showing me the philosophical use of this term, in another thread. Thank you.

 

However my point here was not the details of the scientific use but the fact that the philosophical use is open ended, whereas the scientific use has tightened things down to a complete and useful system.

Is the Plato method any use in resolving the hidden variables issue in Bell's (or any other ) theorem ?

Edited November 30, 2023 by studiot

[AIkonoklazt]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes I readily acknowledge your showing me the philosophical use of this term, in another thread. Thank you.

 

However my point here was not the details of the scientific use but the fact that the philosophical use is open ended, whereas the scientific use has tightened things down to a complete and useful system.

Is the Plato method any use in resolving the hidden variables issue in Bell's (or any other ) theorem ?

The only situation I could think of right now is if the dialectic results in the construction and/or refinement of a practical theory. That said, the hidden variables aren't really "resolved;" They're just pushed further down the road while more details and findings are revealed in the meantime.

[studiot]

37 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

They're just pushed further down the road while more details and findings are revealed in the meantime.

Exactly, pushed down the line.

But using the scientific definition of determined is complete in itself.

[Eise]

8 hours ago, studiot said:

Is the Plato method any use in resolving the hidden variables issue in Bell's (or any other ) theorem ?

Is the Aristotle method of the four elements any use in sending space probes to Mars? @studiot: why are you still asking such stupid questions? Did you pick up anything I wrote about philosophy in this (and other) threads?

[Eise]

16 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

16 hours ago, Eise said:

False dichotomy. When you know that there are many philosophers who are compatibilists, then you should know that determinism and freedom of the will are not a priori contradictory.

I think they are.

No. You believe they are.

16 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I see I got a down vote. 

For the record, not from me. But somebody else already compensated you . +1 is too much, for somebody who doesn't want to engage in a philosophical discussion about a philosophical topic in the philosophy forum.

16 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

We can only go in circles arguing. 

I think making the same step again and again is the better metaphor. In my opinion, the problem is that people stick to some out-of-date ideological meaning of 'free will', that is not rooted in our daily use of the concept of free will.

Of course, I fully accept your experience of free will. But obviously, instead of trying to reflect on this experience, people take, unreflected, some metaphysical, or theological meaning of the idea of free will.

In your case, it leads to a (partial) denial of determinism (you say the future is essentially open, don't you?). In @iNow's case it leads to a complete denial of free will. The idea you have in common is that determinism and free will are contradictory, so one of them has to go.

[studiot]

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Is the Aristotle method of the four elements any use in sending space probes to Mars? @studiot: why are you still asking such stupid questions? Did you pick up anything I wrote about philosophy in this (and other) threads?

Look, I am sorry you were recently unwell and very  glad that you have recovered.

But why the frequent sniping all of a sudden?

Surely that is beneath you ?

 

In answer to your question, you have completely misunderstood my post to another person.

My use of 'Plato' did not refer to the ancient greek of that name, but to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which, in turn, was referred to by a link from another person.

 

[Eise]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

But why the frequent sniping all of a sudden?

Why this denigration of philosophy, even after I repeatedly corrected you? You cited Plato (the ancient Greek philosopher...), you cited Einstein, giving the impression that he thought philosophy is useless, which is not the case, etc. I discovered no change in your position, or arguments against mine. Therefore my 'snipiness'.

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

My use of 'Plato' did not refer to the ancient greek of that name, but to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which, in turn, was referred to by a link from another person.

Well, that is really confusing, calling SEP 'Plato'.

So I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but only if I really misunderstood you. 

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, Eise said:

Why this denigration of philosophy, even after I repeatedly corrected you? You cited Plato (the ancient Greek philosopher...), you cited Einstein, giving the impression that he thought philosophy is useless, which is not the case, etc. I discovered no change in your position, or arguments against mine. Therefore my 'snipiness'.

Well, that is really confusing, calling SEP 'Plato'.

So I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but only if I really misunderstood you. 

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

 

You should take that up with Stanford University, not me.
Please note the address, many, including Stanford University itself,  use Plato as the shortform for the site.

 

If you have not come across it I consider it a valuable resource and subscribe $10 for the priviledge of membership.

[Eise]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

 

You should take that up with Stanford University, not me.

Well, that explains the confusion. 

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Eise said:

In my opinion, the problem is that people stick to some out-of-date ideological meaning of 'free will',

Of course. The world would no longer be wrong if only they agreed with ME and MY personally preferred definitions of words. The problem is THEY are using the wrong views and need to think MY way.  

[TheVat]

Omnibus cauliflower poltroon strabismus pecan-prestidigitate recirculator furzen-fenster.  I freely wrote that sentence.  Was it entirely determined as a the result of antecedent conditions crafted in the Big Bang?  Could I have willed to compose some other sentence?  (i.e. if we ran the universe back to the BB, and then let things play out again, would I type the same sentence?)  

 

[TheVat]

https://undark.org/2023/11/17/book-review-free-will/

Offers some good summary of the discursive issues so far.  Looks at books by two authors who reach quite different conclusions about free will.  Here's a snippet that I found amusing.

Quote

Sapolsky walks us through these arguments, as well as other pro-free will concepts, including quantum indeterminacy, which challenges the idea that the universe is deterministic, and emergent complexity, the idea that reductive, discrete parts of a system (say, neurons) can produce stunningly complex results without a master plan, which challenges the idea that you can predict what an organism will do based on examining the antics of its constituent neurons. But Sapolsky concludes that even though all these concepts challenge claims that the universe is deterministic, they do nothing for the pro-free will camp.

Back over in “Free Agents,” Mitchell does not entirely disagree. He concedes that humans do not have complete and total freedom: On the contrary, he believes that “selfhood entails constraints,” and he agrees that we are shaped by our evolution, genetics, and the random variability and environmental factors that developed our brain into its own particular organ. But, crucially, in his view, that doesn’t make us automatons. Once we evolved metacognition, we lost the ability to claim that our actions are entirely disconnected from any notion of moral responsibility. Accordingly, we should continue to praise people for their achievements and punish people for their sins, since, writes Mitchell, “Brains do not commit crimes: people do.”

 

[StringJunky]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Of course. The world would no longer be wrong if only they agreed with ME and MY personally preferred definitions of words. The problem is THEY are using the wrong views and need to think MY way.  

"Someone's wrong on the internet".   

[studiot]

On 11/29/2023 at 12:01 PM, studiot said:

Wouldn't a counter example to this definition be someone at the beginning of a nuclear physics course saying

I have free will to pass my exam ?

She may be able to pass that exam at the end of the course, but at the beginning  she can only wish.

I still don't see anyone taking me up on this and explaining why this is not an example of free will.