The word ‘volition’ assumes the existence of a mover- a person with free will and is usually best avoided.
I tend to replace it with “the experience of volition” which more accurately defines what is happening in that it does not assume cause, only the correlation between one’s experience and the event- more than that we cannot currently defend. Whatr we do know is that there is a causal chain between the conscious and unconscious medley of brain signals that DO lead to action in the world. Whether or not the experience of volition is part of the process is the very nub of the problem and Libertarians have a tendenecy to continually beg this question by assuming within their question the answer they wish to find. If the language is clarified, the truth begins to emerge.
I do separate from you here in your use of language which, I believe, gives Libertarians licence to claim their beliefs are supported by compatibilists.
All human experience needs (IMHO) to be categorised as mere experience- an observer of a situation- until we prove otherwise. Which is why I prefer to the “experience of volition” or 'a belief that thought causes action".
Once the language is thus detoxified, the truth begins to emerge, and the truth is as with all science-eventually we do not know everything but at least we know what we know and know what we don’t know!
I’ve been using the word volition specifically to distinguish my views from theological “Free Will” viewpoints.
I disagree with what you say the word assumes. That’s one of the big problems with this thread: you and monstro keep offering definitions with which I do not agree. You accuse me of circular reasoning, but I make the same complaint about your definitions. They are arguments that are presented in the form of definitions.
It’s a little like the recent abortion thread: I don’t see any possibility of meaningful communication at this point. Your views and mine are simply too far apart.
I am reluctant to derail the concise discussion of Free Will, but let me put a scenario to you.
Consciousness and sense of will are not possessed by an individual but by a society. If a human baby were to be brought up like Harlow’s monkeys with no education about their heritage, no socialisation, no enculturation and so on- just the bare necessities of life- then personhood and the concept of consciousness would not occur. One would be as a lower animal- competent to be physically in the world in protected circumstances but lacking cognitive abilities that come only from socialised beings (it is of interest that the wide range of animals with evidence of more advanced cognitive abilities have varying body and brain sizes (dolphins, apes, dogs, ants, termites, bees, certain birds and so on all manipulate the world in an intelligent and constructive manner.) What unites them- they are all highly social animals. It is my view that what we experience as Mind, Cognition and Will are not the direct result of material heritance, but the result of adequate bodily function (manipulable extremities, concentrated ability to work together, learning within and over generations etc)together with a social process. In the case of humans certainly, Culture has replaced Natural Selection as the driving force behind survival.
In this sense, consciousness is not possessed by an individual- a body and brain alone, but by a college of such entities living together and passing skills from generation to generation. I lean towards the ideas of Julian Jaynes who believed that modern views of Will, Mind and action did not occur until very late in human development- in fact as late as 1000 bce, and that our failure to understand that explains why Free Will is such a difficult concept to discard.
volition
vəˈlɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
the faculty or power of using one’s will.
“without conscious volition she backed into her office”
vo·li·tion [voh-lish-uhn, vuh-] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of willing, choosing, or resolving; exercise of willing: She left of her own volition.
2.
a choice or decision made by the will.
3.
the power of willing; will.
volition (vəˈlɪʃən)
— n
the act of exercising the will: of one’s own volition
the faculty or capability of conscious choice, decision, and intention; the will
the resulting choice or resolution
philosophy an act of will as distinguished from the physical movement it intends to bring about
volition
1615, from Fr. volition (16c.), from M.L. volitionem (nom. volitio) “will, volition,” from L. stem (as in volo “I wish”) of velle “to wish,” from PIE *wel-/*wol- “be pleasing” (see will (v.)).
I mean, as I’ve said repeatedly, I consider thoughts and feeling as external. You may not. If you think thoughts and feelings don’t count as external, then I guess you are inclined to conclude we have free will. But I think the argument for thoughts and feelings being external is very compelling. Quite simply:
No one chooses what thoughts they will have. No one dictates what thoughts they will have in response to a stimulus, nor how intense those thoughts will be.
No one chooses which feelings they have or how powerful those feelings will be.
Thoughts and feelings determine our choices. We can’t choose an option we never think of. We don’t choose an option that carries no emotional valence. Nor do we select an option that registers as irrational, unpleasant, dangerous, or repulsive UNLESS we experience an even more compelling thought+feeling. (Yes, eating the bowl of vomit is disgusting. But you don’t want to starve to death, do you?)
As a result of the above, I conclude thoughts+feelings count as coercive external factors, just as powerful as a loaded gun held to our head. Thus, I can’t see how free will could ever be possible. We can skirt around this problem by treating thoughts and feelings as internal, non-intrinsic factors. But that’s cheating, IMHO.
I’m aware that some people in this thread think this is all a load of crap. But they can’t seem to argue against it in way that convinces me. Even if I ignore every study I’ve ever read, I simply don’t experience my thoughts and feelings as being under my conscious control. I don’t will what I think and feel. So I can’t say I will my actions. The most I will concede is that maybe free will exists for super evolved, hyper-conscious people. But it doesn’t exist for simple people like me.
I appreciate the correction. I am not a philosopher, and I admit I don’t know all the terminology of philosophy. “Experience of volition” is definitely what I mean. The experience certainly exists. Whether or not volition exists as the experience would have us believe is another question. But the experience is real enough to talk about in a meaningful way. If I say, “I am typing these words under my own volition”, I am not bullshitting. If I wasn’t typing under my own volition, I would have a very different experience. It’s just that I’m using the royal “I” rather than the singular “I”. Since I am legion.
Any other statement beyond the experience is speculative. I can get hung up on the not-knowing-of-the-Truth like it signifies that I don’t exist as a person. But really, all it is is me focusing on what’s important. The “what” rather than the “why”. If I ever want to know what’s really going on, I can go get my head shrunk or scanned.
After my day of “deciding” to read from one wiki link to the next … I’m no closer to a personal understanding of “self” “will” and/or “volition” although I really like the appeal of the electromagnetic theories of consciousness, l despite their being far out and discredited.
My “intuition” hints to me that somehow thats how things work, within my understandings of the science…
Im getting there though, so thanks to all who have shared here, and also for ratcheting down the discussion tone abit.
Im pretty simple too Monstro, but if you knew how many choices I have to go through just to write a few paragraphs, and the endless re-editing, and fixing, and word choices…haha…(my language module was MUCH better in my 20’s)
Pjen, Im not quite sure I agree with Jaynes on his ideas, I will have to read up (again), The Bicameral Mind?
I feel, with no evidence whatsoever, that “consciousness”, “will” “volition”, or at least a “complex decision fault tree”, probably came with the language module, perhaps 60,000 years or longer…( Im really unsure on the language dates)
When the software was downloaded from the space aliens!!! :eek: haha fooled ya!! ok until next time.
Jupe
I have had Jaynes on my shoulder since Bicameral Mind was published and treated it with some scepticism but kept it in mind. Problem is, the more neuroscience that is done, the less there is to fault Jaynes reasoning for late self consciousness (not for late consciousness which was grreatly increased by late stone age culture- consciousness arose then almost certainly, but there is very suggestive evidence that a cultural shift also occurred about 3000 years ago when personhood overtook consciousness. Worth a read.
And it goes a long way to helping the current debate to be done in perspective!
From here http://philpapers.org/surveys/
“a survey of professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views, carried out in November 2009. The Survey was taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students.”
Results
Compatibilism is way ahead; Pjen is right when he says
Trouble is, I suspect that **The Other Waldo Pepper and Trinopus **also hold views which are compatible with compatibilism, although not necessarily the same views as each other. Comparatively few philosophers accept the statement that there is ‘no free will’.
I am the hardest of hard determinists (with the proviso that Science eventually dead-ends on final cause in every case, not just this one and ends up requiring non-defined entities) but even I accept that Free Will exists in the same way that Oxford University exists in the ylean sense.
Ryle made the point that unlike most US universities, Oxford has no campus whatsoever. It has many colleges spread throughout and beyond the mediocre midlands town and has some administrative buildings. It owns lecture theatrea and museums, and enough land in Southern England to walk from there to Cambridge without leaving such land.
Now when someone asks “Where is Harvard” one can point to a centralised facilty in one main location and say “This is Harvard University.” But when one says “Where is Oxford University” there is no 'thing ’ to point at. Oxford University as an occurrence in Time and Space is entirely a mental construct making discussion easy. Without destroying multiple places it would be impossible to Burn Down the University, or given its collegiate status, to sell it to another corporation. Nevertheless, everyone uses the term becasue that makes Academia in the area easy to understand. Similarly even determinist use Free Will as a concept when disciplining their children or sitting on a jury. This does not reify the term- it remains a useful construct without causative effect.
But you will not define what is meant by Free Will which is why you are able to engage in such misunderstandings as you insist on posting as arguments.
[/QUOTE]
What the heck are you talking about?
I define “free will” as the quality by which a volitional entity – who can be persuaded by appeal to a decision-making calculus within an internal moral structure – makes a choice he can be held ACCOUNTABLE for, since he can then give an explanation that refers to his internal store of previous experience rather than external coercion, as someone who can reason and be reasoned with.
I figure the “reason and be reasoned with” part is implied, since (a) we’re of course doing that, as people do; and (b) far from being coy about it, I’ve used that phrase often in this thread. And likewise for us being all-caps ACCOUNTABLE. And we each engage in a decision-making process, which I’ve explicitly and repeatedly mentioned. And et cetera – leaving the bit about making a choice without external coercion, in accordance with one’s internal ideals and outlook.
Which is why, when asked, I posted a dictionary definition to that effect:
*free will
freedom of decision or of choice between alternatives
2.a. the freedom of the will to choose a course of action without external coercion but in accordance with the ideals or moral outlook of the individual
b. the doctrine that people have such freedom*
So you say I “will not define what is meant by Free Will” and I say you’re “wrong”.
I agree with you almost completely about the location of consciousness—that it inheres in the collective a lot more than in the individual, hence the location of the SELF does likewise. But that almost is a very important word. The individual is not a passive receptacle but rather is the locus for a lot of minor ongoing critiques of the collectively maintained models of reality. At any given time there are a plurality of descriptors in play and individuals’ choices make a slow difference in what the collective thinks. What the indivdual contributes that is other than puppetlike is very minor and nowhere near as original as individual tend to believe, but that doesn’t make it nonexistent. And it is that critique that makes it possible for the collective to shift its thinking over time. Hence my rejection of the conventional Sociology model of socialization, which does treat individuals as entirely passive receptacles of the process.
Anyway, back to free will: so the Self inheres more (a lot more) in the collective than in the individual. Fine. That doesn’t mean free will doesn’t exist, it just means that the Self that folks think of as “me”, that’s making the choices and whatnot, is not who they think it is; that the consciousness we experience has some illusions associated with it, primarily the illusion that Self is an individual. But not that it itself—consciousness and will—does not exist.
If I am not my thoughts and I am not my feelings, what the heck am “I”? Conscousness consists of thoughts and feelings and conscousness is the “I” that I refer to when I say I. What are “you” to you as used in the phrase “Do you believe you have free will?” - ??
Or, if by “external” you mean something other than "that which is not ‘I’ ", what the heck is “external”?
I’m not committed to the idea that “external” is even a necessary idea (there may be nothing “external” to Self at least for certain understandings of Self) but it’s at least a useful one. However, putting thoughts and feelings into the “external” category makes me wonder what ISN’T external.
I do not think I am making myself clear on this point. Let me try to elucidate.
This is my current position:
Non-social animals and gentically human organisms without culture are sitll conscious and intelligent. If a baby is abused as above and brought to maturity in safety and with basic needs met, bu is not encultured, it will be severely maladjusted to society and incompetent in language and social skills, but may have many traits that are intelligent. What they will not be is ‘persons’
At some point in Human history I believe that genetically identical humans to modern man existed who also were not Persons. They had no sense of erson will and saw their life dictated by their surroundings and had minimal difficulty working in low technology cultures (stone age/late bronze age) in small family or kin groups. People acted automatically without feeling any individual will- it was natural to dowhat you did when you did.None of the technology used reuired any great amount of deep thought or model making. This changed. SOciety became more complex and the ability to not only be conscious, but to be actively conscious started and admitted model making and the creation of complex social constructs - technology was passed down through the generations and learning became the norm- maybe just by rote or by example, but the complexity of the inter-generational inheritance increase exponentially over time. Language increased in complexity and with wrting, passing on information over generations became possible.At some point this investigative model making was turned inwards and people started applying the new technique (folk science) to human experience- and at this point Free Will (with all its advantages and drawbacks was born; personhood was constructed). Although not Christian or Jewish I like to see the Tale of Adam and Eve as not eating of the tree of knowledge (of which there was much in pre-literate societies) but eating of the tree of social construction whereby humans could make conscious models of the world and themselves and test them against reality. The real fall was the loss of rote like certainty for the unknowns of the sceptical investigation of reality. This is socially very real but has no direct physical cause- it is an emergent property of matter and requires some type of neutral monism to support it as a scientific idea.
I have gone much further here into what i am working on than I inteneded, but I hope that it helps. I am still working on the outlying regions of this concept so I may come across as unclear and confused- but I am working to clear that confusion.
If “you” are your thoughts and feelings, how could you ever act in opposition to them?
What are you deliberating, if you are your thoughts and feelings? Doesn’t the act of deliberation require you to be separate from these things?
I don’t know. Just like you are able to divorce morality from free will, I guess I can divorce it from the question of “self”. It doesn’t bother me that in talking about free will as an illusion, I’m also arguing that our sense of self is also an illusion. Because I’m under no illusion (heh) that “self” can’t be an illusory thing. I am not the same person now as I was when I was 12 years old. I can easily imagine that sixty years from now, I’ll be a different “me” than I am now. And why wouldn’t I? I will have accumulated sixty more years of experiences and memories. The integrity of my brain will have changed a whole lot during that time as well. I really hope that I DON’T have the same preferences and dislikes and that I’m not as sensitive/insensitive as I am now. I am attracted to the notion of an abstract “self”. So it doesn’t bother me that I can’t explain to you who “I” am. I just know that there’s a “me” that separate from “you”.
By external, I mean that which I am not responsible for, can’t control, didn’t create or put into action, and/or not aware of.
A thought+feeling is external because it arises from an experience with the environment. The environment is, by definition, external.
Thus, a thought+feeling is an external factor. No one consciously forms an association. It happens outside of their control and awareness. You can’t say “you” are your consciousness in one breath and then say your thoughts+feelings are equally “you” in the next . Because your consciousness is not the author of thoughts+feelings. Not anymore than the radio is the composer of the music you’re listening to. You can say “you” is the entire brain and nervous system. But this doesn’t solve the problem of free will. If you can’t say with certainty what all the choices were your brain deliberated to reach a decision, then you can’t say anything about what information went into the decision-making process. What kind of free agent is this?
That’s whole the point, right? If it’s hard to define what isn’t external to us, then maybe we should drop this requirement and only speak of “volition” or “constrained will” or something else that isn’t weighed down by so much baggage. People certainly do appear to possess volition–acting purposefully in according to what feels natural and sensical to them. The key words for me are “natural and sensical”. If a person is acting in a way that DOESN’T feel natural and sensical to them, I have no problem saying they are impaired somehow. I also don’t have a problem judging if their sense of “natural and sensical” is abnormal or broken. What I DO have a problem with is saying that they we are in the position to judge when a person is or isn’t capable of acting with free will. This requires a much larger burden of proof–one that I don’t think could ever been attained.
You stated that I “will not define what is meant by Free Will” – which was simply incorrect. You’ve also stated, incorrectly, that I fired off objections when I was busily expressing none. You further stated that I’ve introduced ideas of my own instead of relying entirely on other sources; you were incorrect there, too.
You offer the opinion that one of us looks ill-educated? I note the fact that one of us is demonstrably incorrect on a myriad of subjects.
You talk as though a Philosophy 101 primer would reveal things to me. You of course don’t know whether I took Philosophy 101 – or whether I followed it up with a minor in the subject – or whether I completed the major with a big fine philosophy-of-mind senior thesis; you don’t know whether I then headed off to grad school and promptly earned a degree on decision-making theory; if you’d like to commit yourself to yet more demonstrably incorrect claims, by all means keep on keeping on.
(Not that credentials establish anything, of course; it’s just that I just know you have a penchant for making incorrect claims. Heck, feel free to add that I don’t happen to have a middle name; it’d be just as irrelevant, and just as incorrect.)
If you have such credentials then the money on your education was wasted. People can claim anything on line, but will be known by the quality of their posts. Your posts are an indication of failure to understand either the basic problem or the methods of argument suitable.
