Determinism and free will

[pErvinalia]

The moral angle is bogus too. Just because we have "free" choices available to us under Dennett's definition, doesn't mean "we" have any moral agency.

[JimC]

The moral angle is bogus too. Just because we have "free" choices available to us under Dennett's definition, doesn't mean "we" have any moral agency.

If we don't, then what are the implications for how we can or should behave? I like the idea that we can have a pragmatically useful moral sense, one that is both grounded in our hominid evolutionary history, and fine tuned by rational debate, rather than morals handed down by a sky daddy...

[pErvinalia]

The moral angle is bogus too. Just because we have "free" choices available to us under Dennett's definition, doesn't mean "we" have any moral agency.

If we don't, then what are the implications for how we can or should behave?

We can behave how we want. But there could be consequences.

[Rum]

I have exercised my free will by not posting in this thread!

..oh fuck..

[Brian Peacock]

Free will exists under the definition Dennett gave. Your silly little counter example doesn't refute that.

It's not supposed to refute it. It's pointing out how absurd the definition is.

I feel you've been consistent in your dismissal of free will without really explaining what exactly it is you're dismissing, and why. What is the free will which you do not agree with?

[pErvinalia]

Scott's definition (which I assume is an analogue of Dennett's).

[Brian Peacock]

Scott's definition (which I assume is an analogue of Dennett's).

OK.

Free will is:
The ability of an agent to predict, on occasion, and evaluate the possible outcomes of various alternatives and behave according to that evaluation. This then indicates that there are degrees of freedom; the better an agent's ability to predict and evaluate the more freedom it has. Sometimes, though all the prediction and evaluation in the world will not help if there are no alternatives, in such cases there is no free will. This is the gist of Dennett's argument in Freedom Evolves.

Going back to this definition, that means that my phone has free will because it uses auto-correct.

Free will, as is both commonly understood and is taken to mean in this context, concerns human motives, not merely the existence of alternatives. The clue is in the word 'will', which implies action beyond mere unthinking habit or instinct, actions who's motives have to be distinguished and considered in context.

The algorithm in your phone does indeed offer you alternatives selected from a base list which is also appended by user interaction - within certain bounds. Predictive text then is wholly deterministic: if you add the same combination of information in you'll get the same information out, depending on a few predetermined variables. But you, the agent, have to decide which alternative, if any, should make it to your txt, and is goes without saying that your phone does not predict what you intend to say, or when you want to say it, or to whom, or compose and send txt messages without your input. Your phone has no motives, it has no will. It is not an agent, it is the tool of an agent.

Nonetheless, following your predictive text example, do you consider that which we call free will operates on a similar level or in a similar manner to the predictive txt algorithm, that is; considering a choice of beverages, and given a particular informational state, you'll always and only ever choose coffee over tea, beer over gin, and that this implies that 'free will' is a non-starter?

[pErvinalia]

None of that was in Scott's definition.

[pErvinalia]

And remember, Dennett is a determinist. So saying "predictive text is wholly deterministic", isn't a rebuttal. Not least to me, a determinist.

[Scott1328]

But it only succeeds at pointing out how silly your attempted counter example is. As I said try harder. Might suggest using the Sims in Sims 3

[pErvinalia]

You haven't actually explained why it is silly, though.

[Brian Peacock]

I've suggested the predictive text analogy doesn't work as a response to what Scot said, because it doesnt account for the common notion of free will as motive origination, and invited you to expand on your thinking. That invitation remains open.

[laklak]

Predictive text is a rather simple algorithm. If predictive text has "free will" then any conditional programming statement has free will. If-Elseif-Elseif-Else would qualify.

[JimC]

And remember, Dennett is a determinist. So saying "predictive text is wholly deterministic", isn't a rebuttal. Not least to me, a determinist.

He is actually not committed to either determinism or non-determinism. His position is that his version of free will is compatible with determinism.

My position is that saying that the whole universe is either one or the other is far too absolutist. Some systems within the universe, at least for very long periods indeed are completely deterministic to all intents and purposes. Other systems, given chaotic behaviour for certain parameters and quantum uncertainty in initial conditions are not.

[Hermit]

Predictive text is a rather simple algorithm. If predictive text has "free will" then any conditional programming statement has free will. If-Elseif-Elseif-Else would qualify.

That's what rEv keeps saying: free will, in the sense of a more or less autonomous agency, is an absurd concept.