Free will re-redux

Isn't that the definition of an epiphenomenon? I looked up the definition and :

A mental state regarded as a by-product of brain activity.

That seems like an incomplete definition. I would go with this one:

a secondary effect or byproduct that arises from but does not causally influence a process.


Or the first sentence here:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/


~~ Paul

My argument is that neither I nor anyone else I've read or talked to has described such events. If there is a compelling description, you merely need to guide me to it. What does Nial mean by "non-predictable" that isn't covered by a simple lack of knowledge?

Can you explain your conception of one of these indeterministic nonarbitrary events?

~~ Paul

Sorry Paul but that's hardly a good argument.

Most of us have no idea what you find so objectionable about events that are not random, but also not 100% predictable.

If you cannot explain the problem you have it isn't a surprise no one can meet your criteria. Perhaps to you it looks like everyone has failed to meet your demand, but from the other side it looks like you are just moving goal posts and being evasive.

An actual argument, structured like a proof - perhaps a proof by contradiction, would help this conversation cover something new rather than be a rehash of an apparently ineffectual 75 page conversation.

If you cannot explain the problem you have it isn't a surprise no one can meet your criteria. Perhaps to you it looks like everyone has failed to meet your demand, but from the other side it looks like you are just moving goal posts and being evasive.

I THINK he is coming from determinism/randomness along with things like nature/nurture.

Let's say there are two, equally appealing identical chairs next to each other for you to sit on. In the past you might have walked down the right side of a path and kicked your toe on a rock, you might be left handed so you prefer left more, you might drive on the left side of the road so it is more inherently appealing. All those influences from your environment affect your decision, even if it's between two identical objects, so how could your decision be free? I think Paul is asking where the un influenced decider comes in, how can there be an agent free of events that push them towards a certain option.

I THINK he is coming from determinism/randomness along with things like nature/nurture.

Let's say there are two, equally appealing identical chairs next to each other for you to sit on. In the past you might have walked down the right side of a path and kicked your toe on a rock, you might be left handed so you prefer left more, you might drive on the left side of the road so it is more inherently appealing. All those influences from your environment affect your decision, even if it's between two identical objects, so how could your decision be free? I think Paul is asking where the un influenced decider comes in, how can there be an agent free of events that push them towards a certain option.

But it seems Paul is saying even if there is a God who created all of reality, and governed all causation, that even then not only could that God not give the gift of free-will BUT this God itself could not have free-will.

In any case I still don't get why these past influences have to fully determine your decision? Or, on the flip side, why if they don't the decision has to be random?

I feel like this sort of thing is what we talked about in that 75 page thread...

This is why it's better for Paul to just give us some kind of argument for why all events have to be either random, determined, or some combination of the two.

In any case I still don't get why these past influences have to fully determine your decision? Or, on the flip side, why if they don't the decision has to be random?


This is why it's better for Paul to just give us some kind of argument for why all events have to be either random, determined, or some combination of the two.

I mean if he was involved in a 75 page thread and still wasn't convinced so badly he started ANOTHER one, probably just best to throw up some persuasive links and be on your way. No reason to waste time wracking your brain on how to convince someone that badly.

For the other bit, how would you say that things like past experiences or genetic traits don't compromise a person's sense of free will? Would they just be influences involved in the decision making process, rather than deciders on what that person will do?

I mean if he was involved in a 75 page thread and still wasn't convinced so badly he started ANOTHER one, probably just best to throw up some persuasive links and be on your way. No reason to waste time wracking your brain on how to convince someone that badly.

For the other bit, how would you say that things like past experiences or genetic traits don't compromise a person's sense of free will? Would they just be influences involved in the decision making process, rather than deciders on what that person will do?

Yeah it's impossible to tell what Paul wants, at least for me. Why it'd be better for him to just make his argument directly, rather than for us to continually be told our explanations don't satisfy him.

As for the second part - influences rather than deciders.

Wow, we’ve almost got the whole gang back together...

Wow, we’ve almost got the whole gang back together...

God please no I've looked at the last free will thread the last thing I want is everyone to be back for round 2 XD

Sorry Paul but that's hardly a good argument.

Most of us have no idea what you find so objectionable about events that are not random, but also not 100% predictable.

If you cannot explain the problem you have it isn't a surprise no one can meet your criteria. Perhaps to you it looks like everyone has failed to meet your demand, but from the other side it looks like you are just moving goal posts and being evasive.

An actual argument, structured like a proof - perhaps a proof by contradiction, would help this conversation cover something new rather than be a rehash of an apparently ineffectual 75 page conversation.

I don't find them objectionable per se. I just haven't heard a satisfying description of how they might work. There hasn't even been a vague attempt in this thread. Nor have I heard one in my travels over the past couple of years, since our previous long conversation.

It's almost as if you just think I'm being ornery and if I would stop then suddenly I'd see the light. It also seems as if it's my job to prove that such an event is impossible, but I am not the one proposing the concept. There isn't going to be a proof one way or the other, or we would long ago seen it in professional philosophy. I'd just like a bit of a description.

~~ Paul

But it seems Paul is saying even if there is a God who created all of reality, and governed all causation, that even then not only could that God not give the gift of free-will BUT this God itself could not have free-will.

In any case I still don't get why these past influences have to fully determine your decision? Or, on the flip side, why if they don't the decision has to be random?

I feel like this sort of thing is what we talked about in that 75 page thread...

This is why it's better for Paul to just give us some kind of argument for why all events have to be either random, determined, or some combination of the two.

Yes, I am saying that about god.

I will repeat my argument. We have deterministic events, such as those we see every day happening in computers. We also appear to have events that are not predetermined in any way and so are arbitrary. Physics supports the existence of such events. However, I am happy to stipulate that some of what we think is random may not be.

All I ask to become skeptical of my own argument is a description of how an indeterministic decision can be made that is not arbitrary. In other words, an argument that is not wholly a combination of predetermined and random.

There is no need to ask me to prove that all events are predetermined or random. I'm happy to accept for the sake of discussion that they are not. But that does not answer my question. If you think that it is impossible to specify how a free decision is made, simply say that.

~~ Paul