5 ms·

> You’re starting from a definition of free will that is a modern outlier compared to the historical use of the term in Western culture. > That our will is not

> You’re starting from a definition of free will that is a modern outlier compared to the historical use of the term in Western culture. > That our will is not completely free is obvious to a child: they can’t always get they want. They can’t will an ice cream cone into existence. > “Free will” never meant freedom from physics, so it’s a tautology to say it’s not free because of physics. Well, would you care to share with us what "free will" really means, then?

ratrocket 4y ago
Not OP, but later in their comment they say: > [...] declining dessert because I’m trying to lose weight. Which is the sort of banal decision that “free will” has historically referred to. So, they shared that "free will" really means things like ... declining dessert.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  In that case, by "free will" they mean "the feeling of free will". In which case it's completely besides the point, since the original argument is about how can free will arise from deterministic/random universe. If the rebuttal is "well I feel like I have free will" there is nothing anyone can do to refute that, since the feeling is real, to them. But that doesn't mean free will itself is real. He's not really choosing to decline dessert just for the sake of it - he has a motivation behind it: losing weight. Now, one could say "well I could decline dessert just for the sake of it" to prove a point, but then "proving a point" would be the motivation for declining dessert. There's just no way out. Free will is a fundamentally ill-defined concept, just like consciousness. We all "feel" it, but nobody can put it into words precisely enough to enable any kind of rigorous discussion.
snowwrestler 4y ago
Of course I can't say what free will "really means," which is a bit of a rhetorical trap. I can say that historically, free will as a concept was invented by people to explain their observations of themselves and others making decisions. As a concept it has historically been scoped to our lived experiences. A person can choose to sin (or not), choose to commit a crime (or not), choose how to react to their stimulus and base motivations. A hungry person can choose not to eat, and go on a hunger strike. An irate person can choose not to be violent toward the object of their anger. An aroused person can choose not to have sex with the object of their desire. Which of these decisions violate our understanding of physics? None of them. A person on hunger strike will eventually die of malnutrition or lack of energy, no matter how strong their will to live on. In that way it is (and has been) a concept which is strongly constrained by physical reality, not a metaphysical free-for-all.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > Of course I can't say what free will "really means," which is a bit of a rhetorical trap. Then I'd argue there's no point in even discussing it. "What can be said, can be said clearly" and all that jazz.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
    I deleted a more contentious comment. I’ll just say that I think we can constrain the discussion of complex topics even if we can’t nail down the exact answer yet.

ratrocket 4y ago

Not OP, but later in their comment they say: > [...] declining dessert because I’m trying to lose weight. Which is the sort of banal decision that “free will” has historically referred to. So, they shared that "free will" really means things like ... declining dessert.

bheadmaster 4y ago
In that case, by "free will" they mean "the feeling of free will". In which case it's completely besides the point, since the original argument is about how can free will arise from deterministic/random universe. If the rebuttal is "well I feel like I have free will" there is nothing anyone can do to refute that, since the feeling is real, to them. But that doesn't mean free will itself is real. He's not really choosing to decline dessert just for the sake of it - he has a motivation behind it: losing weight. Now, one could say "well I could decline dessert just for the sake of it" to prove a point, but then "proving a point" would be the motivation for declining dessert. There's just no way out. Free will is a fundamentally ill-defined concept, just like consciousness. We all "feel" it, but nobody can put it into words precisely enough to enable any kind of rigorous discussion.

snowwrestler 4y ago

Of course I can't say what free will "really means," which is a bit of a rhetorical trap. I can say that historically, free will as a concept was invented by people to explain their observations of themselves and others making decisions. As a concept it has historically been scoped to our lived experiences. A person can choose to sin (or not), choose to commit a crime (or not), choose how to react to their stimulus and base motivations. A hungry person can choose not to eat, and go on a hunger strike. An irate person can choose not to be violent toward the object of their anger. An aroused person can choose not to have sex with the object of their desire. Which of these decisions violate our understanding of physics? None of them. A person on hunger strike will eventually die of malnutrition or lack of energy, no matter how strong their will to live on. In that way it is (and has been) a concept which is strongly constrained by physical reality, not a metaphysical free-for-all.

bheadmaster 4y ago
> Of course I can't say what free will "really means," which is a bit of a rhetorical trap. Then I'd argue there's no point in even discussing it. "What can be said, can be said clearly" and all that jazz.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  I deleted a more contentious comment. I’ll just say that I think we can constrain the discussion of complex topics even if we can’t nail down the exact answer yet.