In my view there is no such object in the world that is a person other than the Organism embodied and in a social environment. A child encultured so porrly that it has no human cointact (see Harlow’s Monkeys) would not be a person, but a mere organism with human genetics- Personhood is a unique blend of inheritance and experience. Personhood need not include any concept of Free Will. There is evidence that what we conceive as Free Will developed so late (possibly as late as Early Classical Times, that it is definitely not a result of evolutionary development, but is a chimera that arises from high levels of information and communication within a social multi-generational group.
I agree with Trinopus. Thanx for trying to bring some clarity!! (Ive followed this thread from the start…Robert where are ya?)
The dillema in this thread, from my perspective, is the hard and fast taking of stances, more over definitions than anything else.
Perfect Free Will, as per the exact definition? Not happening, too many triggers and pulls.
That said, at the top of the consciousness pile, meaning after the genetics, enviornmental influences, random chaotic electrical spikes etc. IMHO there certainly is SOME sort of executive control system, making “choices” and exhibiting “volition” etc. Perhaps its the “semiautonomous moral compass navigator software complex” 
although will seems easier to spell…
Seems to me you cant have these discussions without talking of the nature of the self…and ice cream!!!
I will have both chocolate AND vanilla please.
Of course it is self-evident that all of these things are true. Just like it is evident that the moon is larger when it’s in the horizon or that the sun revolves around the earth. Just because we can convince ourselves that these things prove our beliefs doesn’t make them proof. And if it we can’t prove something, we should stop claiming we know it exists.
And it’s fine if you want to keep asserting that you willed yourself to like vanilla-chocolate pickle sandwiches because you’re a hardworking, virtuous type of person. But when it comes to writing policy, I hope you realize that your delusion shouldn’t be used as a cudgel. I can’t will myself to like vanilla-chocolate pickle sandwiches in a vacuum. I will eat one if you hold a gun to my head or if you threaten to kill my family. But I’m not going to be compelled to eat one absent some external force that reasonates with my biology. So you had better create some incentives or disincentives to compell people to make the “right” choice. Otherwise, your plan to make society conform to your eating behavior will fail.
You have to make one, but you don’t have to call it free will. Or conclude that because you made a certain choice, other people are able to make the same choice with the same level of freedom.
I disagree. I think social programs are the manifestation of our belief systems. Perhaps the fact that we don’t have more social programs can be attributed to the stubborness of certain people in changing their minds about “free will”. These are the people who insist that we’re free agents who can choose our destinies through sheer will and virtuous character. Do you disagree that these people don’t have loud voices or hold a lot of political power? Where do you think their ideas come from, if it’s not from an presumption of free will?
If you can’t see how memories and experience are coercive, then seriously, there’s no need for us to go any further.
[/QUOTE]
You missed the part where it specified “external” coercion; that’s okay, you maybe read it too fast. Try again, you still have a shot at getting it right.
Sure seems convenient that you first say you’ll concede the argument if I can open up a dictionary and find a definition consistent with learning stuff and making decisions accordingly – right before bowing out in the next post.
Regardless, if those are your final words to me in this thread, I’d like to note the following: you think people who believe in “free will” hold the weird position that (a) old memories can simply be wished away into nonexistence, and that (b) folks don’t learn from experience when reasoning accordingly.
The dull truth is, if you ever meet a guy who agrees that (a) old memories can’t so be wished away, and (b) folks can of course learn from experience and reason accordingly, you need to then ask him whether he believes in “free will” – because maybe he’ll say yes and maybe he’ll say no – because the definition used by those who believe in “free will” is entirely compatible with those answers; if it weren’t, that belief would’ve long since died out; heck, it never would’ve appeared in the first place.
I see that you did not bother with that Philosophy 101 primer.
You probably still see objections where there are none, too. You see a lot of stuff.
I merely note that, if you or monstro persist in arguing against a belief no one actually seems to hold – or for a belief everyone seems to hold – then those who believe that “free will” exists will (a) say oh, yes, we knew that already, and (b) possibly conclude that you likewise believe in “free will” unless you specify otherwise.
My point was that people arguing against the existence of “free will” seem to keep making rhetorical distinctions between the arguably freewill (or non-freewill) -possessing person and these other things which I, too, consider aspects of the person.
I’m a newbie, here, and should probably not even try to join-in this topic. But I feel compelled (by what ?) to chime-in: I have long suspected that free will may be illusionary and have argued for this with many. Almost nobody seems willing to concede that our actions, even our thoughts, may come to us via some sort of deterministic path. Do we eat because we know it’s dinnertime, or is the act more precisely the result of hunger, of bio-chemical imperatives ? I dunno’, but this question is, I think, far from settled. The insights and links offered here are really great ! This is such an interesting site ! I just wanted to say that.
I’d have to disagree. The decision is made on the basis of very many inputs, including inputs from the brain itself. There is so much “negotiation” going on internally, the system approaches chaotic status.
I agree that many decisions are predictable (in abstract theory) because humans are creatures of habit. It doesn’t take an atom-by-atom analysis of my brain to know what I’m likely to have for dinner tonight.
I agree that there is some element of illusion in our thinking processes.
But there is no possible way for such an analysis to know what I’m going to have for dinner ten years from now, because the analysis can’t take into account all the inputs, many of which are external. A new supermarket chain might open, and I might be buying some different foodstuffs. (Or I might die in an auto crash tomorrow!)
You’d have to analyze the entire world, because the world affects my choices.
Don’t by shy in offering an opinion; I don’t think anyone here really knows. We’re just saying what we think, and trying for clarity.
As I said above, I most certainly acknowledge that some of our choices are influenced by deterministic pathways. I said, in an earlier post, “The stomach gets a vote.” You’re very right that my choices when hungry will be different than my choices when full.
But…it isn’t programmed in BASIC. There are so many billions of “IF…THEN…” exceptions, a great many of which kick the decision back to previous exceptions, that the effect is too messy to be called deterministic.
(I think!)
The Other Waldo Pepper, I believe, had the best insight. Study people who are suffering from addiction, or obsessive/compulsive disorder, or serious clinical depression. Whatever it is that we have, that those people don’t have…is “free will.”
And Satan worshippers in government can legislate that the population spend every Sunday in church reading the Psalms and shouting hosannas. Christians can pray five times a day toward Mecca. A supermodel can sleep with me. All of these things “can” happen.
It’s just not very likely.
As far as I can tell, your question here is based on the notion that, well, isn’t it possible that advocates of “free will” can land on the same conclusions as people who realize it’s an absurdly incoherent concept? Isn’t there a non-zero chance of a confluence of opinion? Well sure. A shitty poker player without a proper notion of the odds can just happen to make a “smart” bet at the right time, where pros might have no criticisms with their play for that hand. And even a pro who should theoretically understand the game might slip up in certain cases. It’s just notably more likely that the pro will make the winning play for the right reasons.
This is pretty simple. People with foolish notions are more likely to come to foolish conclusions.
For one extreme example: rigid deontological libertarians who claim to believe in “free will” can sometimes (though not always) accept the use of deadly force against simple trespassing. This is a strange issue, and there is much more going on here than just a single misunderstood philosophical concept, but even so, they would be much less likely to land on these brutal and bloody moral conclusions if they didn’t go so ridiculously wrong on the case of “free will”.
If I introduce a new term into this discussion, call it “free wilp”, and I say that all adult human beings of right mind possess free wilp, and that free wilp is a colorless green idea that sleeps furiously, would you say that I have defined this term?
Because I’ll tell you right now, free wilp is entirely compatible with every answer I’ve given or will give in this thread.
With you so far…
Well, after chuckling appreciatively at the classic, I’d start off by asking for some much-needed clarification: wait, how can we tell the difference between colorless green stuff and colorless stuff that isn’t green?
That’s what immediately jumps out at me upon reading that phrase – and, if you reply that it’s impossible to tell the difference between Colorless Stuff That’s Green and Colorless Stuff That Isn’t Green, well, then, I’d ask why you’re making such a big deal over the word if it’s an indistinguishable distinction that makes no difference.
But the argument that neuroscientists would make is that those categories are constructs. The dividing line between a drunkard and a sober person is one that we’ve invented. The same as the distinction between an obsessed person and a non-obsessed person. If someone who meets all the criteria for OCD has impaired free will, what about the person who meets two-thirds of the criteria? Or someone who meets none of the criteria in the DSM-V, but meets yet-to-be-discovered criteria that will published in DSM-VIII? On what basis can we say to someone, “You could control your thoughts if you wanted to, you know.” Without getting into someone’s brain and actually being privy to their cognitive processes, we can’t really say this. It’s a blind judgment.
So neuroscientists would say we need to chill out on concluding that some of us have free will and some of don’t. Because the detection and definition of disorders will inevitably change as science progresses and technology advances. The person who supposedly has free will today may be determined to be the poor wretched impaired person of tomorrow. Instead of having to issue an erratum every time this happens, why not discard the whole crappy notion all together and assume everyone has their own set of constraining algorithms dictating their behavior. This way, we don’t have to wring our hands over whether it’s fair to execute a guy with an IQ of 75 while allowing the guy with an IQ of 70 to live. Or whether it’s fair to hospitalize a delusional schizophrenic, while sending a person suffering with a personality disorder to prison.
A question to you: If someone came up with an intensive therapy involving surgical implants and conditioning that could “reprogram” your typical hardened criminal into a loving, gentle, empathic person and they had proven it works 99% of the time, would you support instituting this program in prisons? I have a feeling there would be strong opposition by the “Free Willers”, as well as civil libertarians. But IMHO, their outcry wouldn’t make sense. I’m curious how you would feel about this, and how, if the success rate remained at 99%, how this might get you thinking differently about the rest of us having “free will”.
::spit-take::
Didn’t you say “So this shal be my final words to you” a page ago?
I merely wished to note that your claim is a remarkable analogy: we all know that A is a sober person, and Z is a drunkard, and – may well differ over J or Q or whoever along the way, but can sure agree that sober people exist and drunkards exist.
Someone please tell Waldo my last post wasn’t addressed to him, as evidenced by the absence of his name anywhere in it. I’d be ever so grateful if ya’ll could relay this message to him. Thanks!
Really? You’re breaking out Second Grade’s Greatest Hits instead of addressing the point? Are rubber and glue going to make an appearance while folks read along, waiting for you to address it without addressing me?
C’mon: it’s already obvious you posted that inquiring-minds-want-to-know bit because of what I wrote; just keep on keeping on, replying without “replying”; you can do it.
To begin with, I’d certainly favor it on a voluntary basis. The “Doc Savage” approach. (It was also explored in the comic book “Squadron Supreme.”) It could be a condition for a reduced sentence or early parole.
I’d also favor it as an alternative to capital punishment.
As a compulsory measure for all violent criminals…no. I don’t favor it.
(We recently had an IMHO thread by someone who was reluctant to undergo total anaesthesia because it threatened his sense of personal identity. I would respect that viewpoint, even in violent criminals.)
That said…I’d undergo such treatment myself if it helped with depression and addiction. My own sense of personal identity isn’t threatened by this (nor by the Star Trek transporter…) 
There isn’t any sharp cut-off. It’s gradual. For legal purposes, we can choose an arbitrary limit, and penalize anyone beyond that limit who drives a car (etc.)
But someone can be absolutely pissing, vomiting, staggering, and howling drunk, and still have some personal control. It doesn’t disappear enitrely until unconsciousness.
Are you thinking of Free Will as a discrete thing, a “Boolean” quantity, with values only of zero or one? You must have read enough of my posts in this thread to know that my model is very different than that.