The Solution to the Problem of the Freedom of the Will

I am making no such argument. What's really going on in this conversation is that I'm asking for a description of free will that is beyond the deterministic/random dichotomy and you just keeping giving me trouble for preaching the dichotomy. I stopped preaching it pages ago.

Let's assume it's utterly and completely invalid. Now, will you give me a description of some other form of decision making?

You can't be serious. So far, your argument doesn't even include a definition of free will. Because if we reject determinism and random as undefined, then "something other than determinism and randomness" is also undefined. So what is free will? [See next post.]

~~ Paul

As I requested earlier, can you pick any causal process and explain the "how" of it?

Because it seems to me I've already given examples of how free will would work in particular metaphysics, but if you can give us a "how" of any causal process perhaps we can move beyond this impasse?

As I requested earlier, can you pick any causal process and explain the "how" of it?

Because it seems to me I've already given examples of how free will would work in particular metaphysics, but if you can give us a "how" of any causal process perhaps we can move beyond this impasse?

I cannot, except see next paragraph.

Would you be willing to give a succinct description of how free will works in some metaphysic? I don't need another name for the agent of free will. I think I need a description of cause and effect in that metaphysic, but it cannot simply be "agent X causes event Y by will." That is no more detailed than "events X and Y cause Z by physical interaction" or "without event X, Z cannot occur" or "event Z happens at random."

If you believe that we cannot get any more detailed than those scenarios, then so be it.

~~ Paul

I don't know what attractors are. This doesn't seem to explain why our choices are (supposedly) free.

~~ Paul

I already posted a definition of attractors in a prior post.  At the end of this post - I will show how it is used in Ecological Psychology in reference to affordances.  Affordances are attractors of focus due to their logical fulfillment potential for an agent.

Let me ask - what does free mean to you? Do you see organic chemistry as over-ruling free will in all cases?  I see at least 3 potential states for a living thing's behavior.

1/ Having some degree of determined response such as a release of hormonal chemistry within the organism.
2/ Being a random reflex response without consideration.
3/ A response from consideration from past experience and goal-seeking attractors.  This is typically called a choice and sub-divided into subconscious choice or conscious choice.  Plans are conscious choices based on creating structured information (a real object in nature) that form attractors.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/so...s/neumann/

 Information physics has solved the problem of measurement by identifying the moment and place of the collapse of the wave function with the creation of an observable information structure. There are interactions which create collapses but do not create stable information structures. These can never be the basis of measurements.

Bob Doyle (the Information Philosopher) has developed arguments for Free-Will far beyond my humble background in the subject matter.  I strongly agree with his approach.  

Here is an example of the relationship of affordances to attractors.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21691904

 Abstract

On a daily basis, one perceives whether an object affords grasping with one hand or with both hands. In experiments in which differently sized objects of a fixed type have been presented, the transition from using one manual mode to the other has depended on both the ratio of object size to hand span and the presentation sequence-that is, size increasing versus decreasing. The transitions and their observed hysteresis (i.e., a transition ratio larger for the increasing sequence) can be accommodated by the order parameter dynamics typifying self-organizing systems. Here, we show that hysteresis magnitude depends on (a) the interaction between the attractors (one hand vs. two hands) and (b) the strength of the two-hands attractor. Through modeling and experimental results, we extend the investigation of affordance perception within dynamical-systems theory.

So far it seems the free will denial argument is "I can't prove every causal chain has to fit the deterministic/random dichotomy, and I can't explain how causation works, but I KNOW that free will cannot exist no matter what."

Then there seems to be an insistence that someone has to show why the deterministic/random dichotomy is false or an exception exists...but isn't that an odd requirement to make of someone? We don't ask people to disprove God, assuming Its existence, after all. Someone has to show why the dichotomy is a valid thing to assume about reality.

Feel like I'm missing something, because I just don't see why anyone should take any of the presented "Free Will is Impossible" arguments seriously?  Seems like a  faith-based claim to me. *shrugs*

Doesn't it require free will to choose to live a Life that denies it?

Question: If pk is a real phenomenon, does that then lead to the existence of free will? My belief is "definitely".... 

My reasoning.... if the intention of an individual or group of individuals can affect a separate physical system through no physical means other than intention, then free will must exist. If free will does not exist then how else can an intention or will of the individual(s) physically alter a system?

Question: If pk is a real phenomenon, does that then lead to the existence of free will? My belief is "definitely".... 

My reasoning.... if the intention of an individual or group of individuals can affect a separate physical system through no physical means other than intention, then free will must exist. If free will does not exist then how else can an intention or will of the individual(s) physically alter a system?

I am agnostic to pk being able to exert force on a physical structure.

The issue that science can move on now is that it know that the information processing of living things effects the the probability of physical events by directly changing information structures.  A mental act of focusing on a plan of action changing real world probability by changing the information relationships of objects is well proven.  Measurement of particles changes the probability of the momentum and location according to QM.  (observer effect)

I am agnostic to pk being able to exert force on a physical structure.

The issue that science can move on now is that it know that the information processing of living things effects the the probability of physical events by directly changing information structures.  A mental act of focusing on a plan of action changing real world probability by changing the information relationships of objects is well proven.  Measurement of particles changes the probability of the momentum and location according to QM.  (observer effect)

Agreed, but "observer" can mean a lot of different things to different people. 

Agreed, but "observer" can mean a lot of different things to different people. 

An observer can be simply defined as an agent who can record specific data about an object, event or process.

An observer can be simply defined as an agent who can record specific data about an object, event or process.

And how is 'agent' defined?