Logic

Originally posted by twhitehead
Under what definition? I believe we do under some definitions but not others.

I hadn't realised that the original post was by Wolfgang and not you. It seemed to imply that he felt that robots make choices that were not free will choices but that humans make choices that are free will choices, hence the argument that the ability to choose is not what co ...[text shortened]... free will.
I don't think I yet know what you think constitutes free will (that we don't have).

Sorry, wasn't intending to hijack your discussion.

I would say that I tend to view free will as the idea that you have agency
over your thoughts and choices, that given the [exact] same situation you
could have done differently. Because that's what most people [it seems to
me] seem to actually mean when they talk about free will.

Now of course you can create a definition that corresponds to something that
is true and thus define free will into existence.

But I feel that that looses what people generally actually mean by the term.

In a proper philosophical debate I would probably just ditch the term altogether
and describe what it is I believe and why, and not bundle it up into this single
term.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Under what definition? I believe we do under some definitions but not others.

I hadn't realised that the original post was by Wolfgang and not you. It seemed to imply that he felt that robots make choices that were not free will choices but that humans make choices that are free will choices, hence the argument that the ability to choose is not what co ...[text shortened]... free will.
I don't think I yet know what you think constitutes free will (that we don't have).

Let me step in here with something that I think may be a legitimate definition of Free Will.

One has demonstrable Free Will, given that the choices available are all equally valid choices.

No, no, let me explain.

This is why Free Will is uniquely human. A robot is programmed to make a choice contingent upon which choice results in a more highly desired outcome. Because of this, one choice is always best. There are no equally valid choices, there is only one valid choice given its programming, which it has no free will but to follow.

Animals, and to some degree plants (those who have the ability of motion anyways ), must react in accordance to their genes, their 'programming', if you will. There are a lot of choices they could make that are simply not equally valid. They must choose the best choice to survive. Those who do not, do not live long enough to reproduce and sustain the species. No free will there, either.

Humans, on the other hand, have a reasonably well-functioning upper brain, the sapient mind. Many choices confronting man in the course of a normal day are equally valid choices. Do I wear the blue dress today, or the yellow one? Many are not. Do I speed past that cop or do I just drive normally? Do I turn left or right at this intersection? One way gets me closer to my goal, the other delays me. Especially if you're already late, these are not equally valid choices. For those that are, we can use our reasoning ability to discover which choice we prefer at any given time. Do I have the roast beef for lunch, or the meat loaf? Nah, I don't feel like roast beef today, so meat loaf it is.

This concept of 'equally valid choices' also applies to more metaphysical things. Do I believe in God or do I not believe in God? Because we have no proof (evidence is not proof) of God or not-God, both choices are equally valid, therefore free will exists. One clue we can get towards which choices are equally valid and which are not lies in how many people choose each side. Of course there are other factors in play (there always are), but for the most part if close to equal numbers choose each side, then both choices are equally valid. Another clue is how many people change their mind after making a choice. Some people have a harder time making decisions and so make choice after choice, trying all sides before finally coming to a conclusion. But generally, the fewer people making either choice who later change their minds, the more equally valid are the choices.




Of course, as always, this is my opinion, so take it or leave it, or in lieu of that, or in addition to that, you can always ridicule me and call me stupid and tell me how disappointed you are in my thought process and how I'm better than that. But I'm likely to use my free will and blow that off like a bad dream. So go ahead and use your free will to choose from the equally valid choices presented here. 😀

Originally posted by Suzianne
Let me step in here with something that I think may be a legitimate definition of Free Will.

One has demonstrable Free Will, given that the choices available are all equally valid choices.

No, no, let me explain.

This is why Free Will is uniquely human. A robot is programmed to make a choice contingent upon which choice results in a more hi ...[text shortened]... So go ahead and use your free will to choose from the equally valid choices presented here. 😀

This will not be suitably in-depth so apologies for that...

This is why Free Will is uniquely human. A robot is programmed to make a choice contingent upon which choice results in a more highly desired outcome. Because of this, one choice is always best. There are no equally valid choices, there is only one valid choice given its programming, which it has no free will but to follow.

Not at all. Just introduce a random input and hey-ho, the choices become equally valid. This may well be the same kind of thing that influences our choice of clothes to wear etc, we are just unaware of all the inputs that lead to that decision that we thought we made 'freely'

Animals, and to some degree plants (those who have the ability of motion anyways ), must react in accordance to their genes, their 'programming', if you will. There are a lot of choices they could make that are simply not equally valid. They must choose the best choice to survive. Those who do not, do not live long enough to reproduce and sustain the species. No free will there, either.

You said 'those who do not'. They may not survive but they have still made that 'free' choice. Also, they make the same kind of 'equally valid' choices as us: Shall I eat the leaves of this branch, or that one, etc.

For those that are, we can use our reasoning ability to discover which choice we prefer at any given time. Do I have the roast beef for lunch, or the meat loaf? Nah, I don't feel like roast beef today, so meat loaf it is.

Animals make those kind of choices all the time.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Suzianne
Let me step in here with something that I think may be a legitimate definition of Free Will.

One has demonstrable Free Will, given that the choices available are all equally valid choices.

No, no, let me explain.

This is why Free Will is uniquely human. A robot is programmed to make a choice contingent upon which choice results in a more hi ...[text shortened]... So go ahead and use your free will to choose from the equally valid choices presented here. 😀

...Free Will is uniquely human. A robot is programmed to make a choice contingent upon which choice results in a more highly desired outcome. Because of this, one choice is always best. There are no equally valid choices, there is only one valid choice given its programming, which it has no free will but to follow.

So a google car comes to a T junction. It can go left or right. The road system is such that it can get
to it's destination by going either way, and both routes are of equal distance and on equally fast roads
with equal probibilities of traffic delays ect ect.

The two options [left or right] are equally valid choices and the car has to pick one.

Why under your system does the car not have free will? But a human driving it in the same situation with
the same knowledge does?

Do I believe in God or do I not believe in God? Because we have no proof (evidence is not proof)
of God or not-God, both choices are equally valid

Evidence is not necessarily proof, it is however evidence. If you have evidence for claim A and no evidence
for claim B then claim A is generally the more likely to be true and the better choice if you have to make
a choice.

God or not-god are not equally valid choices. It's not a 50-50 coin toss as to which is more likely.
It's also not the choice on offer, this is the same mistake Pascal's Wager makes.

There are a huge number of gods on offer, as well as the option of their not being any.

And these gods vary in their plausibility as well as their likeability [for want of a better word].




Furthermore, if choices are equally valid it pretty much by definition doesn't matter which you pick.

You evidently don't think that "believe in god" and "don't believe in god" are equally valid choices as
you believe that one is correct and one is not.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But I'm likely to use my free will and blow that off like a bad dream.

As others have already said, animals and robots would have as much free will as we do under your definition.
Further, it is not true that absence of proof of something's existence does not make choosing to believe in it or not believe in it equally valid.

But it is telling that in your sentence above, you demonstrate that you are not consistent with your own definition. You state quite clearly that you will make a free will choice in which you are more likely to choose one way than the other - presumably because that choice results in a more highly desired outcome. This contradicts your definition.

Originally posted by PatNovak
I am somewhat doubtful that this is true. My experience (which is admittedly anecdotal) is that Christian will tell you that any path to god is fine as long as you get there. I think most Christians (erroneously) think their religion is both logical and evidence based, so they do not discourage people from using purely logic or evidence as a path to god.
...[text shortened]... ce or not (see Argumentum ad populum fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

Sorry to delay replying to your post, but it was 2 in the morning and I wanted to sleep, and today I've been somewhat busy.

I was brought up a Christian, I am now an agnostic - and this, at least for me, in regard to the question of the existence of God, puts Atheism on a par with Christianity. I mention this to explain the background to my position. I think you are underestimating the importance to Christians of faith. They may regard any start to the path as valid, but without faith there really isn't very much further one can get.

With regard to logical fallacies, my point was not fallacious because I was explaining what I thought Suzianne meant when she stated that she regarded faith as evidence in itself. I wasn't drawing any conclusion other than that I don't think Suzianne was claiming that that constituted scientific evidence, it would be purely personal and of individual scope. I wouldn't have regarded that sentence as valid in either the Science forum, or, what this site lacks, a philosophy forum - where I think you would have been entirely justified in that dissection. Here I think it unreasonable to base a point on what appeared to me to be a simple case of fairly loose language - had you just mentioned it in passing we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Returning to an earlier point. Somewhere around page 5 I made a point that a God which was all powerful and required some sort of faith test (which the Christian one by all accounts does) would be undetectable, at least in an incontrovertible way. Otherwise the faith test would be blown. Suzianne equated this with free will, which wasn't really my point. Although I don't think that that is unreasonable, since one is hardly left with freedom of action if faced with the choice of going along with the obvious, or condemn oneself before the God that turned out to exist after all.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Sorry to delay replying to your post, but it was 2 in the morning and I wanted to sleep, and today I've been somewhat busy.

I was brought up a Christian, I am now an agnostic - and this, at least for me, in regard to the question of the existence of God, puts Atheism on a par with Christianity. I mention this to explain the background to my position. ...[text shortened]... ng along with the obvious, or condemn oneself before the God that turned out to exist after all.

I was brought up a Christian, I am now an agnostic - and this, at least for
me, in regard to the question of the existence of God, puts Atheism on a par with
Christianity.

I'm not looking for a big fight on this... But...

Atheism is most broadly the lack of belief in gods and not merely the belief in the
lack of gods.
Thus anyone who traditionally defines themselves as an agnostic is also an atheist.

They are agnostic because they don't claim to know if gods exist, or that they claim
that you cannot know if gods exist.
They are an atheist because they don't actually have a belief that gods exist.

Contextually this means that your sentence doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sorry, wasn't intending to hijack your discussion.

I would say that I tend to view free will as the idea that you have agency
over your thoughts and choices, that given the [exact] same situation you
could have done differently. Because that's what most people [it seems to
me] seem to actually mean when they talk about free will.

Now of cours ...[text shortened]... ether
and describe what it is I believe and why, and not bundle it up into this single
term.

I would say that I tend to view free will as the idea that you have agency
over your thoughts and choices, that given the [exact] same situation you
could have done differently. Because that's what most people [it seems to
me] seem to actually mean when they talk about free will.

Yes, that kind of libertarian free will seems to be what most people mean. Keeping in mind that “the [exact] same situation” would necessarily include the same available information, the same ability to reason and process that information, the same level of psychological development (both intellectual and emotional), the same preference orderings, etc. - and not just the external circumstances of the situation - then there can be no rational basis for making a different decision.

In sum, both the external circumstances of the situation, and the individual’s abilities to process that information, would be the same - or else it really isn’t “the same”. People who advocate that kind of free will seem to implicitly assume away the constraint on who they were/are in a given situation.

Once that unrealistic assumption is dropped, what they call “free will” reduces to irrational randomness (uncaused by consideration of the actual circumstances) - or else becomes incoherent altogether; either way, it is a term that loses all its intended sense.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I would say that I tend to view free will as the idea that you have agency
over your thoughts and choices, that given the [exact] same situation you
could have done differently. Because that's what most people [it seems to
me] seem to actually mean when they talk about free will.

Yes, that kind of libertarian free will seems to be what most ...[text shortened]... else becomes incoherent altogether; either way, it is a term that loses all its intended sense.[/b]

Exactly. Which is why I stick with my 'free will doesn't exist' stance.

It's true for most conversations on the topic, and any debate serious enough
to really get into definitions I just drop the phrase and any and all baggage
that goes with it, and just discuss the ideas behind it to avoid confusion or
wasting time arguing over definitions.

Also for the point of view of discussions on this forum, libertarian free will is
the kind that Christians need to validate their 'god respects our free will' arguments.
Compatibilist free will doesn't get them out of the jam, only incompatibilist
libertarian free will does the job.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Consider the implications of [b]irrefutable and absolute proof of God's existence. One can hardly choose to side against an omnipotent and omniscient being, jumping off a cliff would be a better option.

I think free will, or at least freedom of choice, does depend on information. Insufficient information can lead one to fail to realise that one ...[text shortened]... mation can remove freedom - if you knew your own future you'd could never make another decision.[/b]

Consider the implications of irrefutable and absolute proof of God's existence. One can hardly choose to side against an omnipotent and omniscient being, jumping off a cliff would be a better option.

One's having "irrefutable and absolute proof of God's existence" would indeed undermine freedom on the issue of whether or not one should side with this being. But this argument seems confused on what exactly threatens freedom in this case. It is not in one's having the evidential considerations to the point of certainty for God's existence, per se. It is in the bizarre forced-choice circumstances that happen to attend relations with this peculiar being. Obviously, it's not that one can hardly choose to not relate with an omnipotent and omniscient being per se; it's that one can hardly choose to do so when confronted with the bizarre attached stipulation that doing so will result in this being's sanctioning horrific pain and suffering on the actor. This is a case of coercion, plain and simple. It is not a case in which information threatens freedom. The distinction here should be clear. Coercion is something visited on a party by some other agency, and information does not constitute an agency.

This argument shows nothing new to those of us who already understand the ways in which Christian commitments can be extraordinarily childish and perverted in their characterizations of freedom. Hilariously, you will often hear Christians stating that something like the above forced-choice scenario constitutes a "free gift" scenario. As you hint, there would be nothing free about it. But the deprivation of freedom in this case owes to coercive considerations conditioned on God's existence, not to an over-abundance of information regarding whether or not God exists.

I think free will, or at least freedom of choice, does depend on information. Insufficient information can lead one to fail to realise that one has an alternative course of action. I don't think that it's paradoxical to also claim that too much information can remove freedom - if you knew your own future you'd could never make another decision.

Of course, one's deliberations about what to do will be handcuffed to one's information and knowledge of the situation etc. But one is still as free as one can be when he acts autonomously on such information, even if that information is far from perfect. The point of freedom is not about having as many alternative courses of action as possible (and incompatibilist views that require such alternatives for freedom tend to be incoherent nonsense), but rather about one's being a genuine, authentic source of one's actions. (This is the reason why coercion undermines freedom; not because it deprives one of doing otherwise, but because one's coerced choice is not an authentic reflection of one's own agency but rather a reflection of the outside agency imposing the coercion.) One is still a genuine source of one's actions as long as one acts autonomously in faithful reflection of one's information and character traits etc. Whether this information is far or near to perfect is of no concern as it regards freedom. (Of course it will be of concern regarding how wise one's choice is likely to be.)

Regarding the claim that knowing your own future means you could never make another decision, that claim seems ambiguous. It's not clear whether you are claiming, say, that S's knowing he or she will A at time T means that it is not possible that S could do other than A at T; or if you are just claiming that it means S will not do other than A at T.

On the first interpretation, the claim is very dubious. At the least, it is a very non-obvious claim and would require some significant argument in order to support it. The claim seems clearly false just based on basic possible world considerations. For instance, that S will do A at T is perfectly consistent with the claim that there is some possible world(s) wherein S will not do A at T. That is, it could of course simply contingently be the case that S will do A at T, such that it is true of the actual world but false in other possible worlds.

On the second interpretation, the claim is trivial.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't think this post works either. Principally because science is empirical and in the case of God there isn't a consistent phenomenology to investigate. The claim that someone is anti-science because they believe in an unprovable first cause strikes me as too extreme. For one thing the scientific narrative doesn't give a reason for the universe st ...[text shortened]... such a being to ensure any interventions could be rationalised in terms of natural explanations.

I therefore think Suzianne is justified in her claim that there is no contradiction between either scientific method or any given scientific result and her belief in a God. I don't think there's even a problem with the notion of a God that intervenes in the world, since it is a trivial matter for such a being to ensure any interventions could be rationalised in terms of natural explanations.

I do not think these are the relevant points of contention. The point of contention deals with other assertions by Suzianne, including her remark that "This is also the reason there can be no 'young earth creation' for, if proved, this would absolutely prove a divine hand was responsible. Creation necessarily had to have taken billions of years in order to appear as unguided, natural progression."

As PatNovak already correctly pointed out, just because Suzianne's view of an old earth coincides with scientific consensus does not mean her view respects the scientific method. In fact, that idea that her view is science-respectful is fairly absurd, given these sorts of statements on her part. Her view is that God created the world in such a way that it appears to be the product of unguided nature. First off, hilariously, this view has a strong element of self-defeat. If, on her view, the world by supposition appears to a responsible observer to be something other than the product of creative guidance, then she should also be committed to the idea that she herself is not responsible in her observations by reaching the conclusion that it is the product of creative guidance. (Or what's the alternative here? That those who take it, in full accord with the appearance that Suzianne herself stipulates, that it is not the product of creative guidance are irresponsible in their observations? That amounts to a slap across the face to hard-working scientists everywhere.) More importantly, her view here is not a science-friendly one on any level. Hilariously, it simply has no disconfirmation conditions. It amounts to ad hoc stipulation on her part designed to make her view immune from scientific scrutiny and disconfirmation. What irony that she masquerades it around as a healthy respect for scientific deliverances.

News flash for Suzianne: the fact that you put forth ad hoc stipulations that make your view immune from falsification by some article of scientific consensus does not mean your view has successfully absorbed this article or demonstrated any actual respect for the scientific process. Quite the opposite actually, as PatNovak pointed out. I wonder what would happen if scientific consensus unearths new evidence that requires substantial revision to the earth's age. Then I suppose that what "creation NECESSARILY had to have..." will shift accordingly???
🙄

Originally posted by Suzianne
I cannot do this [b]as God does exist.

You tell me to construct an argument based on fact but that I cannot start with a fact. Ummmmmm, no.

That you fail to recognize the fact of God's existence matters not to me, it doesn't change the fact. You will die in your ignorance, and even though I spend my breath here trying to state my case and change ...[text shortened]... can deal with, it can be abolished by learning.

Willful ignorance is another matter entirely.[/b]

You tell me to construct an argument based on fact but that I cannot start with a fact.

No, googlefudge asked you to "construct an argument for believing in god based on faith that doesn't start out assuming that your god exists."

GF is pointing out a common problem for faith-based arguments: they are often circular or question-begging. Here's a humorous past example from this forum: knightmeister claimed (multiple times in multiple threads) that the best way for me to come to belief in God is for me to sincerely and in a heartfelt way pray unto God and ask Him to provide evidence to me sufficient to elicit from me the belief that He exists. Yikes....

Originally posted by DeepThought
No, the characters in the Matrix were entirely forced to do what the scriptwriters wanted them to do. 😉

In the post I responded to PatNovak said the following:

If free will is dependent on anything, it is freedom, not information. Free will does not disappear when a certain level of information is achieved.

Which I don't agree wi ...[text shortened]... ot have a moral decision to make, so free will or at least self-restraint wouldn't be necessary.

Possibly the problem is that "free will" isn't a very good concept since no one has ever made a clear statement of what it actually is. There was an article in New Scientist a few months ago where a researcher into neuroscience (from memory) expressed the opinion that "free will" isn't a great concept and that what could be quantified is our ability to restrain ourselves, which is the next best thing - we are capable of overriding our own immediate desires - and we certainly need information for that, namely of the possible consequences of a decision. If the consequences were known to an actor at the time of the decision, they would not have a moral decision to make, so free will or at least self-restraint wouldn't be necessary.

Popular conceptions of "free will" tend to be incompatiblist, libertarian versions, which unfortunately happen to be incoherent. A main point of free will is that it is supposed to give rise to (or be necessary for) moral desert and responsibility for one's actions. What I view as directly criterial to this is that one be a genuine source of one's actions. In turn, what is criterial to that is just that one acts autonomously, absent coercion and in a way that genuinely reflects one's own evaluative commitments, doxastic states, dispositional and character traits, etc. So, to first order, we could say that freedom of the will lies in the ability to act autonomously; and an action will be autonomous in this sense if the maxim of the action is endorsed by the agent, such that the endorsement has the support of the agent's evaluative commitments and is a faithful reflection of those (introspectible) personal traits. The only sorts of conceptual versions I have seen that adequately capture this are compatibilist ones.

Originally posted by RJHinds
To me "FREE WILL" is simply the ability to make a choice. I don't see anything so complicated about understanding what it is.

To me "FREE WILL" is simply the ability to make a choice. I don't see anything so complicated about understanding what it is.

That one possesses "the ability to make a choice" makes no provision that the choice will not be, say, made under coercion. Obviously, the difficulty here is in providing additional content to the idea of 'free will' that insures the concept against such and related considerations.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I was responding to what were at the time the last few posts in the thread. I can't be expected to go through every one of Suzianne's posts and make a decision about whether she is consistent or not. Since Suzianne seemed to me to be going for a first cause position I felt that the claim was indeed along the lines of "all believers are an ...[text shortened]... likely to arrive. If the universe is spacially infinite and full of galaxies it is a certainty.

I think there is an agenda from the atheists here to attempt to create a false dichotomy between Science and Religion. I do not see how you can claim that belief in a moderately interventionist God is anti-science. For one thing you are focusing on meta-physics, the bulk of scientific effort does not address such large questions.

Hopefully my previous post has clarified what the major problem seems to be with some of Suzianne's statements. For example, the idea that a remark like "Creation necessarily had to have taken billions of years in order to appear as unguided, natural progression" is not anti-science is absurd. This is not a claim based on any general metaphysical commitment or a priori reasoning, etc. Rather it is a clear and shameless ad hoc stipulation designed to make her creationist commitment immune from falsification against a large terrain of scientific work. It is one thing to have a view that is responsibly retained on the grounds that it is consistent with scientific consensus or even confirmed on its account; it is another thing to have a view that is "compatible" with scientific consensus in virtue of silly ad hoc stipulations that provide for a lack of disconfirmation conditions.