Is libertarianism the key to individual freedom and societal prosperity?

[Royce]

As I understand it, or at least personally think of it, Libertarianism is based on the premise that we are all agents of freewill. As such we are all ultimately responsible for our own actions and choices. We solely suffer the consequences of our bad or incorrect, unwise actions and choices and reap the benefits and rewards of our right, correct or wise choices and actions.

We may be genetically predisposed toward certain behavior characteristics. We may be predisposed to certain behavior characteristics by our history, up bringing, our life experiences and our response to these experiences. These things are predispositions not compulsions. We still have a choice and are responsible for the choices that we make. We know what is right and what is wrong. We know what may be wise or unwise, correct or not correct. We usually do not have all the information we may need to make a proper decision but never the less we often choose to choose and must live with that decision.
We cannot blame others or circumstances for the choices that we make. Flip Wilson’s excuse; “The Devil made me do it.” Is just that, an excuse not a reason, and a cop out.

As agents of freewill we are free to choose what we will so long as our choices do not effect another person or his property, freedom or rights. My personal freedom is ultimate, sovereign, sacrosanct and unlimited right up to the point where it starts it infringe upon the freedom, rights and property of another. My freedom and rights extend to and abut with your freedom and rights and everybody else’s. This is why, in Libertarianism, there is one prime law, One can do nothing to infringe upon, harm or limit in any way another person, his rights, freedom or property. Also, if it is not expressly forbidden it is then allowable and acceptable. This is true.

We human beings are, however, social beings and live within societies of other individuals. Every society must have rules, customs and codes of behavior of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable behavior within that society. We consciously and knowingly choose to limit our freedom and modify our behavior to that which is acceptable to that society. This is the cost of living within a society. For this sacrifice we get in return companionship, increased safety and share the benefits of each other’s labor.
This is the social contract that we all enter into and agree with whenever we choose to live within any society. If we should choose not to live within those rules, customs and codes then we are choosing not to live in that society. If we break those rules, we break the contract and become criminals in that society. It is as simple as that.

If we think that our society, state, nation, has bad, wrong or unjust rules or laws, we can attempt to change those laws from within that society using the lawful methods and customs of that society. All living societies are dynamic and constantly changing and adjusting as its members, citizens, within and the world without changes. However, if one chooses to break or disobey the laws and customs of their society, right or wrong, then that person becomes a criminal and is responsible and liable for his actions and will suffer the consequences of his actions and choices including incarceration or expulsion.

Again it is all about freewill, our choices knowingly and freely made. We freely choose to give up some of our personal freedom and choices to live in a society of our choice once we are adults. Once we choose we are free to attempt to lawfully change the laws and customs of that society from within but only with the knowledge and consent of every other member of that society.

To knowingly purposefully break, defy or disobey the laws of our society is breaking our word, our contract, with that society and all of its other members. This is criminal and knowingly and purposefully doing so makes one a criminal. There are exceptions in every society. There are those who choose to live outside of any society. There are those who mentally, emotionally or psychologically are incapable of making informed choices, are incapable of discerning right from wrong, wise from unwise, safe from unsafe. These people are just that exceptions and it is the society that chooses how to handle or care for those people.

In any society there are individuals who believe that they are the most intelligent, wise, morally correct of their society, the elitist. They believe that the rest of society cannot and is incapable of making the correct decisions or choices for themselves. They know better than the people what is right and what is best for them. It therefore becomes their moral right and duty to impose their beliefs and morals upon the lesser “unwashed masses” members of their society. These people, to a libertarian are criminals.

There are also people who attempt to impose their will by the application of force or the threat of force. These dictators, mobsters, extortionist and thugs are also criminals.

There are also those who believe or profess to believe that the society, state, and its needs are greater than the needs of its citizens, that what is good for the state is good for the people and the needs of the state are the needs of the people and a greater need that the people must meet, that it is the responsibility of the state to meet the needs of all its members despite their means or ability. These people are socialist and to a libertarian are also criminals as it perverts the rightful order of the individual being supreme over the state.

To quote Abraham Lincoln; “ a nation (society) of the people, by the people and for the people…” not the other way around. Nor, as in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” are some pigs more equal than other pigs. To the Libertarian, nothing is greater or more important than the individual and his freedom. Ultimately what is good for the individual is good for his society and as the individual thrives and prospers in his freedom so does his society.

 

[moving finger]

As I understand it, or at least personally think of it, Libertarianism is based on the premise that we are all agents of freewill.

Please define what you mean by "freewill" in this context.

MF

 

[Royce]

Merriam Webster Colliate Dictionary 10th edition:

freewill or free will
1. voluntary choice or decision
2. freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by devine intervention.

The common usage and understanding of the word or words.

 

[TRCSF]

So then most Libertarians support gay marriage, right?

Do you know what "rhetorical" means?

 

[moving finger]

freedom ... to make choices that are not determined by prior causes...

if an agent chooses to do something according to its will, then surely what it chooses to do is determined by its will?

If on the other hand its choice is not determined by its will, would you still call this "free will"?

MF

 

[Royce]

Your playing word games. I have determined that you are determined
to dispute that free will exists and that the universe is determinate. Isn't that your choice, your determined choice?

 

[loseyourname]

I don't think it is essential to libertarianism that one believe in non-deterministic free will. There just has to be justification for holding individuals responsible for their actions and thus saying that they deserve what they get when it is a consequence of their personal choices. I recall W.T. Stace making the argument that moral culpability makes just as much sense in a fully determined world, as the deterrence factor functions as one of the determinants of human action.

 

[Royce]

loseyourname,
I may not be understanding what you mean by a fully determined world.
To me it means that our behavior is just as determined as the rest of the world. We would would be compelled by determinism to behave as we would. This precludes freedom to act or to choose. If we have no choices or freedom to act or not how could we be responsible for our choices or acts. We were compelled to do it. In this case "The Devil made me do it." or whatever it was that made you do it would be responsible and absolve you from responsiblity.

It is a basic truth that the greater the freedom the greater the responsibility.
Thus if there is no freedom there can be no responsiblity or culpability. To me determinism and freedom, choice and/or free will are mutually exclusive.

 

[loseyourname]

loseyourname,
I may not be understanding what you mean by a fully determined world.
To me it means that our behavior is just as determined as the rest of the world. We would would be compelled by determinism to behave as we would. This precludes freedom to act or to choose. If we have no choices or freedom to act or not how could we be responsible for our choices or acts. We were compelled to do it. In this case "The Devil made me do it." or whatever it was that made you do it would be responsible and absolve you from responsiblity.

According to Stace, whether or not we are in any way actually morally responsible is unimportant. Misbehavior, and in the case of political libertarianism, poor life performance, should be punished in that the punishment for bad deeds, and in capitalistic societies, the reward for good ones, serves as one of the determining factors of human behavior. Even if we are only mindlessly pursuing the good life and avoiding the bad life compulsively rather than anti-deterministically, capitalism and libertarianism are thus still coherent systems that produce desirable human actions.

It is a basic truth that the greater the freedom the greater the responsibility.
Thus if there is no freedom there can be no responsiblity or culpability. To me determinism and freedom, choice and/or free will are mutually exclusive.

For you, that's fine. It just isn't necessary for a politically libertarian viewpoint. The aim of libertarianism, as I would imagine is the aim of most political theories, is to maximize human utility, to make the good life as widely prevalent as is possible. Libertarianism can do this even if no person is ever morally responsible for their actions in any metaphysical sense. We can continue to behave as if that is the case and that will serve our purposes perfectly well.

 

[loseyourname]

By the way, I'm just posting this to point out to Moving Finger that an attack on free will does not constitute an attack on political libertarianism.

 

[GeD]

My personal freedom is ultimate, sovereign, sacrosanct and unlimited right up to the point where it starts it infringe upon the freedom, rights and property of another.

As far as I know, most people already follow this, no matter of what creed. No one wants to waste their energy trying to infringe upon other people's rights, unless it involves their own interests. Since your freedom is limited only by things that can resist your will - so in this case, human involvement will inevitably bring human conflict. Thus, the purpose of any political or moral system would be to decide (one way or the other) between sides of a conflict of interest. If it cannot handle such conflicts, it fails at its present form and must be adapted or changed.

One can do nothing to infringe upon, harm or limit in any way another person, his rights, freedom or property.

Apart from the major problems of the nature of property, and the existence of rights (as opposed to rights being an invention), the biggest problem still persists - what can libertarianism do to alleviate the inevitable conflict of interests between the people? Stating what is impossible to uphold by everyday people, means that you will be forced to have a government with the power to enforce their will. Unfortunately, this still shows us that any libertarian truths are based on the power they are aligned with - not their degree of "rightness" or a function of "duty".

Ultimately what is good for the individual is good for his society and as the individual thrives and prospers in his freedom so does his society.

Completely disagree on this one. The interests of the individual are not always guaranteed to coincide with the interests of the community or 'herd group'.


I have mixed feelings on libertarianism (as well as every other political system). As a rigid, idealistic system, it can never deal with how situations occur in their specific context. In real life, the system is in fact adapted to people's circumstances so that it is effective. However, the system harshly limits people's freedoms nevertheless, and change comes slow or is stifled for most cases. Thus, any political or government system is forced to take on this agenda: secure the interests of the community as a whole (not individuals), because it is the only way to secure its own power. If it focuses strictly on individuals, it will lose power to other parties that support the greater number.

 

[moving finger]

Your playing word games.

with respect, I am not. I am trying to make you understand that unless you very clearly define what you mean by "free will" you will end up going round in circles. Libertarianism (IMHO) is based on a very loose and inconsistent concept of free will which does not stand up to close scrutiny.

I have determined that you are determined
to dispute that free will exists and that the universe is determinate. Isn't that your choice, your determined choice?

I do not dispute that free will exists. My point is that whether free will exists or not depends on one's definition of free will.

You did not answer my question :
If an agent’s choice is not determined by the agent’s will, would you still call this "free will"?
MF

 

[moving finger]

By the way, I'm just posting this to point out to Moving Finger that an attack on free will does not constitute an attack on political libertarianism.

BTW - I'm just posting this to point out to loseyourname that (A) a question for clarification about the definition of free will is not an "attack" on anything and (B) that "political libertarianism" is a completely different animal to Libertarianism in the context of free will
MF

 

[Royce]

moving finger,
I think that the libertarian definition of free will is purposely vague and imprecise to allow for maximum freedom to choose our own personal definition. The more precise we define anything the more limited it becomes.

First I have argued free will here before and agree that there is no such thing as absolute free will as we are all predisposed and have personal biases. Nor do we ever have complete knowledge of any situation or the consequences and implications of any decision that we might make.

Free will means to me that within the limits above we have choices and are free to choose as we wish for whatever reason. Our choice is not predetermined nor are we compelled to choose one over the other. We are able to actually make a real choice and as such we are ultimately responsible for those choices.

It is not the bartender's fault that I had too much to drink and had an accident on the way home; nor, is it the gun manufacturer's responsiblity that I choose to shoot someone with a gun that he made. It is all about personal freedom and personal responsiblity.

To answer your question, if an agent's choice is not determined by his will then no it can not be free will.

 

[Royce]

As far as I know, most people already follow this, no matter of what creed. No one wants to waste their energy trying to infringe upon other people's rights, unless it involves their own interests.

That's the point, we cannot legally or morally as individuals or as a society place our freedom or rights above those of another individual regardless of our interests or needs. There are whole organization running around trying to do just this, religious and political, and there is the criminal element that tries to make their living doing just this.

Since your freedom is limited only by things that can resist your will - so in this case, human involvement will inevitably bring human conflict. Thus, the purpose of any political or moral system would be to decide (one way or the other) between sides of a conflict of interest. If it cannot handle such conflicts, it fails at its present form and must be adapted or changed.

I agree, this is why we are willing give up some of our freedom to live in a society and give limited power and taxes to a government. This is the main difference between anarchist and libertarians.

Apart from the major problems of the nature of property, and the existence of rights (as opposed to rights being an invention), the biggest problem still persists - what can libertarianism do to alleviate the inevitable conflict of interests between the people? Stating what is impossible to uphold by everyday people, means that you will be forced to have a government with the power to enforce their will. Unfortunately, this still shows us that any libertarian truths are based on the power they are aligned with - not their degree of "rightness" or a function of "duty".

I agree as do most libertarians but the main difference as I see it is that the individual and his personal freedom and property comes first and not the government nor the letter of the law.

Completely disagree on this one. The interests of the individual are not always guaranteed to coincide with the interests of the community or 'herd group'.

Again that's the point of libertarianism. If the interests of the individual and those of the society, state or herd conflict it is the interests of the individual that take precedence

I have mixed feelings on libertarianism (as well as every other political system). As a rigid, idealistic system, it can never deal with how situations occur in their specific context. In real life, the system is in fact adapted to people's circumstances so that it is effective. However, the system harshly limits people's freedoms nevertheless, and change comes slow or is stifled for most cases. Thus, any political or government system is forced to take on this agenda: secure the interests of the community as a whole (not individuals), because it is the only way to secure its own power. If it focuses strictly on individuals, it will lose power to other parties that support the greater number.

Libertarianism is just the opposite of a rigid system albeit it is idealistic. Libertarianism is not a viable political power anywhere in the world as people in power invariably want to keep and increase their power. They see this as imposing their or their government's will over that of its citizens. This is why while I am a self professed libertarian I am not a registered libertarian nor do I vote libertarian as it would be a waste of my vote. It would seem that my vote is usually wasted anyway as it turns out.

 

[Royce]

According to Stace, whether or not we are in any way actually morally responsible is unimportant. Misbehavior, and in the case of political libertarianism, poor life performance, should be punished in that the punishment for bad deeds, and in capitalistic societies, the reward for good ones, serves as one of the determining factors of human behavior.

This sounds like double talk to to me. Good and bad behavior are moral issues.
Punishment and reward are moral responses. I again ask how responsiblity can be assigned if one has no freedom of action or choice. It sound to me once again that he, Stance, is giving the state the power to punish or reward; "should be punished..." In libertarianism there is no punishment for good or bad choices or behavior unless on breaks "The Law" but the natural inevitable consequences of any decision or action determine if the action or choice was good or bad for that individual at that time in that circumstance.

Even if we are only mindlessly pursuing the good life and avoiding the bad life compulsively rather than anti-deterministically, capitalism and libertarianism are thus still coherent systems that produce desirable human actions.

As a pure philosophical libertarian I cannot agree with the wording of this statement as only humans produce actions. Capitalism and political libertarianism may influence and effect humans but do not produce anything.

For you, that's fine. It just isn't necessary for a politically libertarian viewpoint. The aim of libertarianism, as I would imagine is the aim of most political theories, is to maximize human utility, to make the good life as widely prevalent as is possible. Libertarianism can do this even if no person is ever morally responsible for their actions in any metaphysical sense. We can continue to behave as if that is the case and that will serve our purposes perfectly well.

The aim of political or philosophical libertarianism is to maximize human liberty, freedom, as well as properly assign responsibility and minimize cop outs. One of the points of libertarianism is while acknowledging and validating the supremacy of the individual and his rights and freedom is to be absolutely moral within his system of beliefs. Libertarians have been accused of being puritanically moral. Morality, responsibility, is just as important as freedom and liberty. One cannot have one without the other. If one is to be ultimately free one then must assume ultimate responsibility, morality, to be true and consistent to themselves and their beliefs. To assign responsiblity or morality to others or circumstances is to assign those others ones freedom and power.

If I am free and have liberty to choose and act as I choose then I am solely and ultimately resposibile for my choices and actions and must live with the consequences of those decisions and actions good or bad, moral or immoral.

 

[moving finger]

I think that the libertarian definition of free will is purposely vague and imprecise to allow for maximum freedom to choose our own personal definition. The more precise we define anything the more limited it becomes.

With respect - I think it is purposely vague because the Libertarian concept of “free will” does not work – and the only way to hide the fact that it does not work is to keep the definition vague.
The more precisely we define something, the better we can understand it.

First I have argued free will here before and agree that there is no such thing as absolute free will as we are all predisposed and have personal biases. Nor do we ever have complete knowledge of any situation or the consequences and implications of any decision that we might make.

Agreed (but what do you mean by “absolute free will” – is this a vague definition too?)

Free will means to me that within the limits above we have choices and are free to choose as we wish for whatever reason. Our choice is not predetermined nor are we compelled to choose one over the other. We are able to actually make a real choice and as such we are ultimately responsible for those choices.

Mostly agree – except that I believe (a) if the world operates deterministically then our choices (in fact everything we do) are necessarily predetermined and (b) if the world operates with some degree of indeterminism then our choices are not necessarily predetermined (but our choices are still deterministic choices). Note however that “choosing indeterminism” does not endow Libertarian free will.

It is not the bartender's fault that I had too much to drink and had an accident on the way home; nor, is it the gun manufacturer's responsiblity that I choose to shoot someone with a gun that he made. It is all about personal freedom and personal responsiblity.

Agreed.

To answer your question, if an agent's choice is not determined by his will then no it can not be free will.

Agreed.

I really do wonder exactly how you define free will? Or perhaps it is best to keep it ambiguous, that way you can think that you have any kind of free will that you like. Not very satisfying though.

MF

 

[Royce]

I really do wonder exactly how you define free will? Or perhaps it is best to keep it ambiguous, that way you can think that you have any kind of free will that you like. Not very satisfying though.

MF

I see that you are from the UK and as someone once said we are divided (or is it separated) by a common language.

First: I am a firm believer in that this is not a deterministic world or universe
and I think that Quantum Mechanics with its probability wave functions
support this view or belief.

Second: I am a human being and have a will (purpose, intent) of my own
that is not always determined by outside forces or causes.

Third: I am a free agent and free to exercise my will. When faced with
alternatives, choices, I am free to choose whichever alternative I
decide to choose for whatever reason without it being predetermined
by forces outside of myself and/or my will.

I do not know how to put it any better than that.

"free" means not controlled or determined by anything beyond its own nature or being.
"will" volition - mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending to this I add purpose. These are again from the dictionary I sited above.

To me free "will means" that I am not constrained or compelled to act or choose in a deterministic or predetermined manner. I can and do choose and act of my own volition as I see fit at the moment.

 

[moving finger]

First: I am a firm believer in that this is not a deterministic world or universe and I think that Quantum Mechanics with its probability wave functions support this view or belief.

What do you think quantum mechanics has to do with your feeling of free will?

Second: I am a human being and have a will (purpose, intent) of my own that is not always determined by outside forces or causes.

Yes, and so do I. And my will is fully deterministic.
What exactly do you mean by “outside forces or causes”?

Third: I am a free agent and free to exercise my will

With respect, it makes no sense to define “free will” in terms of “free agent” or “free to exercise”. This becomes a tautology, and leads nowhere.

When faced with alternatives, choices, I am free to choose whichever alternative I decide to choose for whatever reason without it being predetermined by forces outside of myself and/or my will.

Again, defining “free will” in terms of “free to choose” is a tautology. What do you really mean by “free to choose”?

I do not know how to put it any better than that.

I humbly suggest that defining free will in terms of “free to choose” or “free agent” or “free to exercise” is meaningless. This simply leads to a circular definition and means…….. nothing.

"free" means not controlled or determined by anything beyond its own nature or being.

What is “beyond its own nature or being”? If I am a computer, do I necessarily have free will because I am not controlled by anything beyond myself?

"will" volition - mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending to this I add purpose. These are again from the dictionary I sited above.

A deterministic computer can have “wishes” and can “choose” and can “desire”… does this mean that a deterministic computer has free will?

To me free "will means" that I am not constrained or compelled to act or choose in a deterministic or predetermined manner.

Really? Does that mean you act indeterministically (at random)?

I can and do choose and act of my own volition as I see fit at the moment.

This is a deterministic scenario – a deterministic computer “chooses and acts of its own volition as it sees fit at the moment” – thus according to you a deterministic computer has free will – thus why are you so afraid of determinism?

MF

 

[Royce]

What do you think quantum mechanics has to do with your feeling of free will?

The uncertainty principle and probability wave functions and sum of histories show that the universe is not deterministic. Since the universe is not deterministic the possibility of free will exists. Since that possibility does exist my experience of exercising my free will is not necessarily an illusion but an actual fact based of my experience of a life time of exercising my free will thousands of times a day, every day of my life. It begins every morning when I decide to get up and go to work instead of staying in bed and ends when I decide to go to bed and go to sleep.

Yes, and so do I. And my will is fully deterministic.
What exactly do you mean by “outside forces or causes”?

What exactly do you mean when you say your will is fully deterministic? Are you a computer running a chatbot program? Do you actually read and understand anything that is written here in this thread or any other at this site? Do you actual understand the English language?

Outside means external, not inside, forces means energy applied like a gun to my head or threats to my or my families safety. Causes are events or reasons that effect current or future events.

With respect, it makes no sense to define “free will” in terms of “free agent” or “free to exercise”. This becomes a tautology, and leads nowhere.

Again, defining “free will” in terms of “free to choose” is a tautology. What do you really mean by “free to choose”?


I humbly suggest that defining free will in terms of “free to choose” or “free agent” or “free to exercise” is meaningless. This simply leads to a circular definition and means…….. nothing.

I didn't. Please read, actually read my replies.

What is “beyond its own nature or being”? If I am a computer, do I necessarily have free will because I am not controlled by anything beyond myself?

If you are a computer, (something that I am beginning to suspect more and more by the stupidity of your repetitive questions of the meaning of simple words and phrases) you have no free will and are under control of your program.

A deterministic computer can have “wishes” and can “choose” and can “desire”… does this mean that a deterministic computer has free will?

All computers to date are deterministic and does not and cannot have wishes or desires as those are characteristics of consciousness and all choices are predetermined by existing logic states and programing.

Really? Does that mean you act indeterministically (at random)?

The word indeterministically does not mean at random.

This is a deterministic scenario – a deterministic computer “chooses and acts of its own volition as it sees fit at the moment” – thus according to you a deterministic computer has free will – thus why are you so afraid of determinism?

A computer does not choose nor act except as instructed by its program and current logic state. A computer has no volition of its own. A deterministic computer, and they all are, has no will, volition of its own free or otherwise.
The random coupling of related words into nonsensical statements is a perfect example of the limits of todays computers. Why are you afraid of indeterminism? Are you afraid someone will pull your plug on a whim?

God! Where is Spock when I need him?

 

[moving finger]

The uncertainty principle and probability wave functions and sum of histories show that the universe is not deterministic.

Incorrect. The uncertainty principle, and the results of QM, shows that the world is epistemically indeterminable, it does not show that it is necessarily ontically indeterministic. I can explain the difference if you wish.

Since the universe is not deterministic the possibility of free will exists.

As per above, the world is not necessarily indeterministic. Even if it were indeterministic, how does “indeterminism” endow an otherwise deterministic agent with free will according to your definition of free will? Oh, sorry, we cannot answer that can we, because your definition of free will is “purposely vague and imprecise”.

Since that possibility does exist my experience of exercising my free will is not necessarily an illusion but an actual fact based of my experience of a life time of exercising my free will thousands of times a day, every day of my life. It begins every morning when I decide to get up and go to work instead of staying in bed and ends when I decide to go to bed and go to sleep.

You are, with respect, misled by your intuitions, your lack of rigorous definition and your sense of naïve (imprecisely defined) free will. All that you describe about your “free will” above is completely compatible with determinism.

What exactly do you mean when you say your will is fully deterministic?

"What I want to do” determines “what I do”. This is deterministic. This is a deterministic will.
Do you do things differently? Do you choose things at random, or is your will also deterministic?

Are you a computer running a chatbot program?

Like you and all other humans, I am a machine.

Do you actually read and understand anything that is written here in this thread or any other at this site? Do you actual understand the English language?

Yes. I also examine issues and question assumptions, with an open mind and with rational and logical arguments, without becoming emotional or offensive. I have noticed that not all humans can say the same.

I am a human being and have a will (purpose, intent) of my own that is not always determined by outside forces or causes.

Outside means external, not inside, forces means energy applied like a gun to my head or threats to my or my families safety. Causes are events or reasons that effect current or future events.

Therefore it follows that an agent can be operating completely deterministically in a completely deterministic world and still have this “will” that you consider to be a human characteristic, as long as the agent’s choices are determined by the agent and not by “outside forces”.

With respect, it makes no sense to define “free will” in terms of “free agent” or “free to exercise”. This becomes a tautology, and leads nowhere.
Again, defining “free will” in terms of “free to choose” is a tautology. What do you really mean by “free to choose”?

I humbly suggest that defining free will in terms of “free to choose” or “free agent” or “free to exercise” is meaningless. This simply leads to a circular definition and means…….. nothing.

I didn't. Please read, actually read my replies.

You stated in post #18:

I am a free agent and free to exercise my will. When faced with alternatives, choices, I am free to choose …….

To which I replied .

I humbly suggest that defining free will in terms of “free to choose” or “free agent” or “free to exercise” is meaningless. This simply leads to a circular definition and means…….. nothing.

What is “beyond its own nature or being”? If I am a computer, do I necessarily have free will because I am not controlled by anything beyond myself?

If you are a computer, (something that I am beginning to suspect more and more by the stupidity of your repetitive questions of the meaning of simple words and phrases) you have no free will and are under control of your program.

As I said, it seems that not all humans can examine issues and question assumptions, with an open mind and with rational and logical arguments, without becoming emotional or offensive.
The truth of your above statement depends on one’s definition of free will, something that you seem to believe should be “purposely vague and imprecise”? No wonder you think you have free will when your definition is purposely vague and imprecise.
A deterministic computer is under deterministic control of its program.
A human being is under deterministic control of its “self”.
Both are controlled. Deterministically.
What would you prefer to have in place of control by the “self”? An irrational human being who behaves randomly? Is this your sense of free will?

A deterministic computer can have “wishes” and can “choose” and can “desire”… does this mean that a deterministic computer has free will?

All computers to date are deterministic and does not and cannot have wishes or desires as those are characteristics of consciousness and all choices are predetermined by existing logic states and programing.

“to date” is the important point. IMHO there is no reason why a computer could not be developed which is conscious of itself and its surroundings, and which can have wishes and desires. The existence of consciousness, wishes and desires is completely consistent with determinism (or are you suggesting that indeterminism is somehow responsible for consciousness?)

Really? Does that mean you act indeterministically (at random)?

The word indeterministically does not mean at random.

Would you (a) care to explain the difference? And (b) answer the question but delete the words “at random” from the question if you prefer?

This is a deterministic scenario – a deterministic computer “chooses and acts of its own volition as it sees fit at the moment” – thus according to you a deterministic computer has free will – thus why are you so afraid of determinism?

A computer does not choose nor act except as instructed by its program and current logic state.

And a human does not choose nor act except as instructed by its “self”.
So what?

A computer has no volition of its own. A deterministic computer, and they all are, has no will, volition of its own free or otherwise.

I disagree. IMHO there is no “in principle” reason why a deterministic machine could not be developed which is conscious of itself and has a “will” and a “volition”. The only question is whether it would have “free” will, which we cannot know because you wish to keep the definition of “free will” purposely vague and imprecise.

The random coupling of related words into nonsensical statements is a perfect example of the limits of todays computers.

The lack of rigour and open-mindedness, coupled with naïve beliefs based on irrational and emotional intuitions, is a perfect example of the limits of today’s humans.

Why are you afraid of indeterminism? Are you afraid someone will pull your plug on a whim?

With respect, it would seem to be you who is afraid of determinism. My definition of free will does not require either determinism or indeterminism, it is compatible with both.

But indeterminism simply introduces …….. indeterminism. It does not endow free will.

God! Where is Spock when I need him?

Spock fortunately is not human, and he also can examine issues and question assumptions, with an open mind and with rational and logical arguments, without becoming emotional or offensive.

MF

 

[Royce]

Incorrect. The uncertainty principle, and the results of QM, shows that the world is epistemically indeterminable, it does not show that it is necessarily ontically indeterministic. I can explain the difference if you wish.

Please do. This, I think, is I think is heart and cause of our inability to communicate successfully.

What “I want to do” determines “what I do”. This is deterministic. This is a deterministic will.

This is the problem! I agree with '"What "I want to do" determines "what I do".' My actions and choices are determined thus deterministic by what I want to do. "What I want to do" is my volition and is not deterministic. "What I want to do" for whatever reason I may have for wanting to do it is what I am referring to as free will.

My, our, actions are determined by my/our will and are as you say thus deterministic. Action are not will nor free will. Actions are what we do.
What we want to do or choose is what I call will, free will as that is not deterministic.

If I have been offensive I apologize. It was because of frustration at my inability to communicate to you my thoughts and ideas. We are, were speaking two different meanings of words. Look up the word will in a dictionary to see an example of what I mean.

Do you do things differently? Do you choose things at random, or is your will also deterministic?

Sometimes when there is not sufficient data or information or if I really have no preference I will choose in a random way but I am sure even that is not truly random. The circumstances, consequences and my desires are what determine my choices usually. Sometimes it is even logical and moral issues that determine my choice. In that way my choices are determined but they are my choices. I choose to choose logical or deterministic way. I do not always choose that way but choose to choose on a whim or emotional or personal preferences. The choosing the way to choose is what I would call free will.

 

[moving finger]

Please do. This, I think, is I think is heart and cause of our inability to communicate successfully.

Epistemic (= our knowledge about) indeterminability is the limit to which we (as observers) can know something about the world. It can be shown that this limit (expressed for example as the uncertainty in our knowledge of the position of a quantum object multiplied by uncertainty in our knowledge of the momentum of the same quantum object) is directly related to Planck’s constant. This is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
Ontic (= the way the world really is) indeterminism is the extent to which the world is actually indeterministic (if at all).
Because of the limits of epistemic indeterminability, the best we can do is to place an upper limit on ontic determinism as described above, but what we do not know (and IMHO can never know because of Hesienberg’s uncertainty principle) is whether the quantum world is fundamentally ontically indeterministic or not.
Many people (including quantum physicists who should know better) make the assumption that QM tells us that the world is (ontically) indeterministic at a quantum level, when in fact the most we can say is that the world is (epistemically) indeterminable at that level.

I agree with '"What "I want to do" determines "what I do".' My actions and choices are determined thus deterministic by what I want to do. "What I want to do" is my volition and is not deterministic.

IMHO volition is deterministic, that is the whole point.
If you believe “my volition” is not deterministic, then what is it? Indeterministic?

"What I want to do" for whatever reason I may have for wanting to do it is what I am referring to as free will.

And IMHO it is deterministic (or at the very least, if there is any indeterminism involved, that indeterminism is not the “source” of free will; free will operates independently of indeterminism).

My, our, actions are determined by my/our will and are as you say thus deterministic.
What we want to do or choose is what I call will, free will as that is not deterministic.

If your free will is not deterministic, what then is it? Indeterministic?

We are, were speaking two different meanings of words. Look up the word will in a dictionary to see an example of what I mean.

I accept that the “common usage definitions” of words may be one thing, but when it comes to philosophical and scientific debate we must be very careful how we define things. The point I am trying to make is that the common usage definition of free will, when you actually come to analyse what it means from a philosophical and scientific point of view, does not really make sense. I think you agree already that even though we talk easily about “free will” in everyday language, it is actually a very hard thing to define and yet to retain a meaning which is consistent with our naïve intuition – and IMHO this is precisely why you feel you need to leave the definition of free will “purposely vague and imprecise”.

Sometimes when there is not sufficient data or information or if I really have no preference I will choose in a random way but I am sure even that is not truly random.

Granted, and I will do the same sometimes. But this is then an “abdication” of will, equivalent to tossing a coin to see if I should either go to the movies or do some studying. This is not free will, but the absence of free will.

The circumstances, consequences and my desires are what determine my choices usually.
Sometimes it is even logical and moral issues that determine my choice.
In that way my choices are determined but they are my choices.
I choose to choose logical or deterministic way. I do not always choose that way but choose to choose on a whim or emotional or personal preferences. The choosing the way to choose is what I would call free will.

I agree completely! I never said that you do not choose. But everything that you say that you do is completely compatible with determinism.

Below follows my explanation of why I think (IMHO) Libertarians are mistaken.

Libertarians seem to believe that "free will" is somehow associated with the fact that "if one could replay the circumstances exactly the same as before, then one must have been able to have done otherwise than what one actually did".

For example, one hour ago I could have chosen to take a lunch break, or I could have chosen to continue typing. In fact, I chose to continue typing. The Libertarian would say that if I could replay the circumstances exactly the same as before, then if I have free will I must have been able to choose to take a lunch break rather than to continue typing.

At first sight, this idea seems intuitively "right"; our naive impression of free will is surely that we can choose to do whatsoever we wish, and therefore (our intuition tells us), if we have free will then that also means that, given identical circumstances, we still must have been able to do otherwise than what we actually did?

Let us analyse this seemingly "obvious" statement a little more closely.

Firstly, what do we mean by "circumstances exactly the same as before"? Do we mean simply that the circumstances should be similar, but not necessarily identical? No, of course not, because obviously if the circumstances were even slightly different then that might affect our choice anyway, regardless of whether we "choose freely" or not.
Therefore, when we say "circumstances exactly the same as before" we do mean precisely the same, including our own internal wishes, desires, volitions, immediately prior to the moment of choice.

Secondly, what do we mean by "able to have done otherwise"?
Do we mean "physically able", in the sense that one is physically capable of carrying out different actions? No of course not - we take it for granted that any reasonable action we contemplate we also are physically able to carry it out - this is not the issue here.
Do we mean "able to choose", in the sense that one is capable of selecting one of among various alternatives?
This seems closer to what we actually mean. But surely "our choice" is determined by "us"?; we "freely" decide our choice based upon the prevailing circumstances, including our wishes/desires/volition.

Now combine these two. Repeat the scenario, with "circumstances exactly the same as before". If circumstances are exactly the same as before, then our internal wishes, desires, volitions will also be exactly the same as before. In which case, why one Earth would we WANT to choose any differently to the way we did before? Replay the scenario with exactly the same conditions, and any rational "free thinking" agent will choose exactly the same way each and every time. The ONLY reason why we should or would choose differently in the carbon-copy repeat is if there is an element of indeterminsim in the choice - but do Libertarians REALLY want to say that their free will choices are governed by indeterminism? I think not.

My answer to the Libertarian concept of free will is : Does it really matter whether I “could” have taken a lunch break or not?

The fact is that “I was able to consider the option of taking a lunch break”, and in addition "I believed at the time that this was an option available to me", and even “I was able to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of taking a lunch break”, and furthermore at the time of my decision I was NOT coerced into NOT taking a lunch break, and (most importantly) I did what I wanted to do at the time, which was "not take a lunch break".

If I could replay that time over again, with literally everything the same way as it was before, then the same things would happen – I would consider the options, I would believe the options are available, I would evaluate advantages and disadvantages, I would not be coerced, and I would once again DO WHAT I WANTED TO DO, which is (because the circumstances are identical) "not take a lunch break".

What I believe most Libertarians ACTUALLY MEAN when they say "if one could replay the circumstances exactly the same as before, then one must have been able to have done otherwise than what one actually did" is in fact that they want to have the "freedom" to NOT replay it EXACTLY as it was before, they want in fact to be able not only to "choose differently" to the way they did before, but also to "want to choose differently", which is then NOT REPLAYING EXACTLY AS IT WAS BEFORE.

The Libertarian who thinks he can replay and choose differently is therefore (IMHO) deceiving himself into thinking that he is actually replaying the same situation, when in fact he is not.

To the naïve concept of free will expressed as “"if one could replay the circumstances exactly the same as before, then one must have been able to have done otherwise than what one actually did"” the rational response is (IMHO) YOU COULD NOT HAVE DONE OTHERWISE THAN WHAT YOU DID, BUT AS FAR AS YOUR “FREE WILL” IS CONCERNED, IT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER!

MF

 

[loseyourname]

BTW - I'm just posting this to point out to loseyourname that (A) a question for clarification about the definition of free will is not an "attack" on anything and (B) that "political libertarianism" is a completely different animal to Libertarianism in the context of free will
MF

Well, it really seemed to me that Royce was arguing for political libertarianism, considering he was arguing from free will. If he was simply arguing from free will to free will, that's not much of an argument. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Regarding (A), your point is taken, but if leaving free will out of the argument doesn't even effect the conclusion, I'd hope we can not spend much time in this thread defining something that is already being defined in 40 other threads.

Edit: Upon reading the second page, I can see that this has turned into a debate about free will, rather than the merits of libertarianism as a political system. I guess I'll bow out.

 

[Royce]

To the naïve concept of free will expressed as “"if one could replay the circumstances exactly the same as before, then one must have been able to have done otherwise than what one actually did"” the rational response is (IMHO) YOU COULD NOT HAVE DONE OTHERWISE THAN WHAT YOU DID, BUT AS FAR AS YOUR “FREE WILL” IS CONCERNED, IT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER!

First thank you for your explanation. Secondly I agree with everything that you said above. However, I never said anything about doing it over again.
I said that I have free will, free volition, the abbility to choose from a given set of alternatives; that within the limits that I previously stated I am free to do as I want at the moment; that my will is not determinate, predetermined by cause outside of myself, my will. If not determinent in the above sense means indeterniment then yes my will, free will is indeterminate. It is, I am, free at the moment to choose what I want in the manner that I want at the moment.

Regardless of whether our will is free or in the sense that you use it determinate will, the point of Llibertarianism is the we all individually are solely responsible for our own choices and actions; that that responsiblity and/or culpablity cannot be shifted or avoided and we must live with the results and consquences of our choices and actions. This is because we are free to make those choices and perform those actions.
If we are not free and our choices are predeterminded by a determinate universe or by someone or something compelling us to choose and act in anyway other than freely of our own volition then we are not and cannot be held responsible nor culpable of the conscequences.

 

[moving finger]

First thank you for your explanation. Secondly I agree with everything that you said above. However, I never said anything about doing it over again.

In which case I apologise, but with respect my understanding is that the Libertarian philosophy is based on “I am not determined, I can do otherwise”.

I said that I have free will

but without defining what free will means…..

free volition

see above re definition of free

the abbility to choose from a given set of alternatives

a deterministic machine does this

that within the limits that I previously stated I am free to do as I want at the moment

see above re definition of free

that my will is not determinate

No? What is your will then? Indeterminate? You have not answered this question….

predetermined by cause outside of myself, my will.

OK, this is consistent with determinism

If not determinent in the above sense means indeterniment then yes my will, free will is indeterminate.

Really? Think about this. Your choices are really random?

It is, I am, free at the moment to choose what I want in the manner that I want at the moment.

see above re definition of free

Regardless of whether our will is free or in the sense that you use it determinate will, the point of Llibertarianism is the we all individually are solely responsible for our own choices and actions; that that responsiblity and/or culpablity cannot be shifted or avoided and we must live with the results and consquences of our choices and actions. This is because we are free to make those choices and perform those actions.

I agree completely, but I also believe this is compatible with determinism.

If we are not free and our choices are predeterminded by a determinate universe or by someone or something compelling us to choose and act in anyway other than freely of our own volition then we are not and cannot be held responsible nor culpable of the conscequences.

Why do you assume that “determined” means “not free”?
First you need to rigorously define what you mean by “free”……. Ummmmm…… have we been here before?

MF

 

[Royce]

I had tried to post a reply a couple of days ago but it got lost. sorry.
Free will, in the sense that I am using it is that we have the ability to actually make choices from alternatives without constraint, hindrance or coercion. Our choices are not preordained nor predetermined. We choose of our own volition. Our choices are real in the moment choices and we are not playing out a role of a predetermined script
from which we cannot deviate.
This thread was started to discuss Libertarianism politically and philosophically. It was not intended to digress into a discussion about free will nor semantics. I will not respond any more to any such discussion.

 

[moving finger]

This thread was started to discuss Libertarianism politically and philosophically. It was not intended to digress into a discussion about free will nor semantics.

Semantics : The study of the meanings of words.

Royce, with respect, the very first sentence of your first post in this thread is :

As I understand it, or at least personally think of it, Libertarianism is based on the premise that we are all agents of freewill

My point in this thread has consistently been that unless you can first define exactly what you mean by free will, then any discussion about Libertarianism is meaningless.

Central to any rational-thinking Libertarian’s beliefs therefore must be a well-defined concept and definition of what free will is, and what it is not.

IMHO (and in my experience) most people who call themselves Libertarians have an intuitively vague and naive idea of what they think free will is, but they are unable to define "free will" rigorously - and again IMHO the reason why they cannot define it rigorously is because the Libertarian naive concept of free will, when defined rigorously, does not actually exist.

MF

 

[Per]

Flip Wilson’s excuse; “The Devil made me do it.” Is just that, an excuse not a reason, and a cop out.
...snip...
This is why, in Libertarianism, there is one prime law, One can do nothing to infringe upon, harm or limit in any way another person, his rights, freedom or property. Also, if it is not expressly forbidden it is then allowable and acceptable. This is true.
...snip...
In any society there are individuals who believe that they are the most intelligent, wise, morally correct of their society, the elitist...snip...It therefore becomes their moral right and duty to impose their beliefs and morals upon the lesser “unwashed masses” members of their society. These people, to a libertarian are criminals.

First, what happens here in Sweden is that criminals don't say "The Devil made me do it", they say "I am what I am (inherited or nurtured), and its not my fault". This statement (the last quote) places moral pressure on judges and jury - they have to agreee to some respect. Now this is a problem.


"One can do nothing to infringe upon, harm or limit in any way another person, his rights, freedom or property." But this is impossible to fulfil. Every action of an individual or group affect someone else, large or small. And this affecting does harm or limit in any way. Always. So you have an inpossble law in libertarianism. An impossible utopia.

"These people, to a libertarian are criminals." Do you meen the elit or the "unwashed masses"; just kidding...

 

[Royce]

IMHO (and in my experience) most people who call themselves Libertarians have an intuitively vague and naive idea of what they think free will is, but they are unable to define "free will" rigorously - and again IMHO the reason why they cannot define it rigorously is because the Libertarian naive concept of free will, when defined rigorously, does not actually exist.

I have reatedly attempted to define what I mean by free will. I did so again in my previous(last) post. I don't know what else I can do to satisfy you with a rigorous definition. Would you care to give us your definition of free will and we can go on from there?

 

[Royce]

First, what happens here in Sweden is that criminals don't say "The Devil made me do it", they say "I am what I am (inherited or nurtured), and its not my fault". This statement (the last quote) places moral pressure on judges and jury - they have to agreee to some respect. Now this is a problem.

We have the same problem here in the USA and to my constant amazement our judges and juries listen to it. It is true "I am what I am." but that does not absolve one from responsiblity. If we have free will we are then responsible for our actions and must take the consequences of our actions. If that means that one is a thief for whatever reason that thief goes to jail.

"One can do nothing to infringe upon, harm or limit in any way another person, his rights, freedom or property." But this is impossible to fulfil. Every action of an individual or group affect someone else, large or small. And this affecting does harm or limit in any way. Always. So you have an inpossble law in libertarianism. An impossible utopia.

Yes our every action may and usually does effect at least indirectly everyone else in our society. The key words are infringe, harm and limit. One example here is smoking in a public building. Other people have a right to breath relatively fresh smoke free air just as I have a right to smoke. I go outside to smoke even at home. It is really as simple and straight forward as that.

Libertarianism is not about utopias it is about personal freedom and responsibility and respect for those of others. It is about not having big government that is monitoring our every move and charging us taxes to pay for their monitoring and controling while some habitual criminal walks the streets because the cops are too busy watching the rest of the citizens and it wasn't his (the criminals) fault anyway because he is what he is.

I say, okay, you are what you are. What you are is a criminal and if you do a criminal act you go to jail.

"These people, to a libertarian are criminals." Do you meen the elit or the "unwashed masses"; just kidding...

It all depends on how "unwashed" they are.

 

[moving finger]

Free will, in the sense that I am using it is that we have the ability to actually make choices from alternatives without constraint, hindrance or coercion.

A deterministic computer also has the ability to make choices from alternatives without constraint, hindrance or coercion..

Our choices are not preordained nor predetermined.

With respect, how do you know your choices are not predetermined?
If you believe your choices are not predetermined, what mechanism are you proposing for making those choices?
Such a mechanism must be based (IMHO) either on determinism or on indeterminism. Which would you suggest?
(IMHO – if our choices are not deterministic choices then the only alternative is that they must be indeterministic choices – but I challenge anyone to show how indeterminism endows free will).

We choose of our own volition.

A deterministic computer also has the ability to choose of its own volition.

Our choices are real in the moment choices and we are not playing out a role of a predetermined script from which we cannot deviate.

How do you know this?
If you believe your choices are not predetermined, what mechanism are you proposing for making those choices?
Such a mechanism must be based (IMHO) either on determinism or on indeterminism. Which would you suggest?

MF

 

[Royce]

let's go back a bit to post, #23 where you wrote:

Epistemic (= our knowledge about) indeterminability is the limit to which we (as observers) can know something about the world. It can be shown that this limit (expressed for example as the uncertainty in our knowledge of the position of a quantum object multiplied by uncertainty in our knowledge of the momentum of the same quantum object) is directly related to Planck’s constant. This is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
Ontic (= the way the world really is) indeterminism is the extent to which the world is actually indeterministic (if at all).
Because of the limits of epistemic indeterminability, the best we can do is to place an upper limit on ontic determinism as described above, but what we do not know (and IMHO can never know because of Hesienberg’s uncertainty principle) is whether the quantum world is fundamentally ontically indeterministic or not.
Many people (including quantum physicists who should know better) make the assumption that QM tells us that the world is (ontically) indeterministic at a quantum level, when in fact the most we can say is that the world is (epistemically) indeterminable at that level.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle shows not just that we can not know the position and momentum of a quantum particle but that it is unknowable in principle. A particle can and will take any and all possible paths to go from point A to point B. There is no way to determine which path that it will take even after the fact that it reached point B. The best that can be done is compute a statistical probability, sum of histories. We cannot know where a particle is or what path it take to get there beyond a probability.
The micro, Planck, world is indeterministic in principle and ontically.
This has been proven over and over again. And quantum physicist who do know better know this. It operates on probabilities which is what led Einstein to say that God does not play dice. Well he does play dice at the quantum level but he doesn't cheat. Since the macro world is made up of the micro world and the micro world is indeterminate despite what you say or believe then it follows that the macro world can be, must also be, indeterministic.
You, my friend, and I and everyone else regardless of what they may believe are indeterminate beings living in an ontically indeterminate world, universe. I, you and everyone else has free will which is the ability to mentally choose how to choose, what to choose what we want to do and what we do.
How do I know this? I know it by observing and experiencing my mental activities as I choose something. I experience the choosing and often know why I choose as I did.
Reality is real and we really experience reality. I experience my exercising my free will hundreds of time a day. I see others doing the same thing. Some times my choices are determined by my mental or emotional state. Sometimes my choices are determined by moral or ethical issues or circumstances. Some times my choices are determined by random means. But always it is me choosing and choosing what I should use to make or let determine my choices. If this is what you mean by your choices be deterministic, okay I can see and understand that; but, who or what determines what determines how you make up your mind, how you choose to choose? I say you do using your free will. Who or what do you think determines your choices, your thoughts and your actions?

 

[moving finger]

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle shows not just that we can not know the position and momentum of a quantum particle but that it is unknowable in principle.

Agreed. But my point is this is a limit to our epistemic ability, it says nothing about the true (ontic) nature of the particle.

A particle can and will take any and all possible paths to go from point A to point B.

How do you know this? This seems to be a matter of unjustified faith. Where is the experimental evidence to support this statement?

There is no way to determine which path that it will take even after the fact that it reached point B.

This is related (once again) to our epistemic abilities. It says nothing about the true (ontic) nature of the particle’s behaviour.

The best that can be done is compute a statistical probability, sum of histories.

Again, “the best that can be done” reflects an epistemic limit, not an ontic limit.

We cannot know where a particle is or what path it take to get there beyond a probability.

Epistemology again.

The micro, Planck, world is indeterministic in principle and ontically.

With resepct, this statement is incorrect. You have not shown this, neither has it been shown (IMHO) in any experiment, ever. Many people “assume” that epistemic indeterminability necessarily implies ontic indeterminism, but this is at best a “belief” or a “faith” and not an experimentally verified fact.

This has been proven over and over again.

With respect, you are wrong - it has not been proven even once. If you think it has, please provide an example where you think ontic indeterminism, as opposed to epistemic indeterminability, has been “proven”.

And quantum physicist who do know better know this.

Incorrect. There are quantum physicists who believe the same as you, and they are mistaken.

It operates on probabilities which is what led Einstein to say that God does not play dice.

Our epistemic limits force us to use probabilities. Einstein and a number of others never accepted that the world was ontically indeterministic, and it has never been shown that it IS ontically indeterministic.

Well he does play dice at the quantum level but he doesn't cheat.

Nope. There is no evidence that he plays dice; the evidence shows only that we have limits to our epistemic abilities.

Since the macro world is made up of the micro world and the micro world is indeterminate despite what you say or believe then it follows that the macro world can be, must also be, indeterministic.

Once again, it has never been shown that the micro world is ontically indeterministic – this is a belief or a faith that you seem to have, based (with respect) on a misunderstanding of QM. If you think ontic indeterminism has been shown to be true, please provide an example where you think ontic indeterminism, as opposed to epistemic indeterminability, has been “proven”.

You, my friend, and I and everyone else regardless of what they may believe are indeterminate beings living in an ontically indeterminate world, universe.

You, my friend, have a rationally unjustified belief.

I, you and everyone else has free will which is the ability to mentally choose how to choose, what to choose what we want to do and what we do.

Please define what you mean by “free will”.

How do I know this? I know it by observing and experiencing my mental activities as I choose something. I experience the choosing and often know why I choose as I did.

Means nothing, until you define what you mean by “free will”.

Reality is real and we really experience reality.

Tautology.

I experience my exercising my free will hundreds of time a day. I see others doing the same thing.

You experience something that you intuitively call free will – but can you unambiguously define exactly what you mean by “free will”?

Some times my choices are determined by my mental or emotional state. Sometimes my choices are determined by moral or ethical issues or circumstances. Some times my choices are determined by random means. But always it is me choosing and choosing what I should use to make or let determine my choices. If this is what you mean by your choices be deterministic, okay I can see and understand that; but, who or what determines what determines how you make up your mind, how you choose to choose? I say you do using your free will.

And IMHO your “free will” is also part of the deterministic chain of events.

Who or what do you think determines your choices, your thoughts and your actions?

If you think your free will is not part of the deterministic chain, how exactly does it operate? Do you have any suggestions?

MF

 

[Eyesaw]

Moving finger, it's still unclear to me
how you are concluding there can be free will
in a purely deterministic universe, though I agree
with you that the UP doesn't help explain it. If the choices
I make every day are a result of deterministic forces-
for example, I decided to go to the gym instead of
the cafe today because neuron A fired (because
of the potato chip I ate last night), instead of neuron
B- then that choice was not made by some by a "me"
but by the fact that I ate the potato chip, which
was further caused by some other biochemical existing
conditions.

I think the normal idea of free will is that there is a "me"
inside of my body that, despite the fact that the potato
chip will cause neuron A to fire in a deterministic biochemical
chain, the "me" inside causes neuron B to fire because that's
what "me" wanted to do at that time. Furthermore, this "me"
would probably not be identifiable using an assay, through interferometry,
x-ray diffraction, or other known methods.

I guess if you redefined freewill the way you did, it would be consistent
with a deterministic universe, but I always thought the only relevant
definition of free will was that in terms of a spiritual material being its
agent that was distinct from the physical material that was purely deterministic. You know, the soul controlling the physical body kind
of stuff.

This is not to say that I can prove nor agree that free will exists
in the latter sense, only that this is the definition that has more political
consequences. Of course since we haven't succeeded in
building a conscious computer, free will under your definition is also not
empirically justified.

 

[moving finger]

Moving finger, it's still unclear to me how you are concluding there can be free will in a purely deterministic universe, though I agree with you that the UP doesn't help explain it.

Whether “free will” is compatible with determinism or not depends crucially on one’s definition of free will.

My suggested definition is :
Free will is the ability of an agent to anticipate alternate possible outcomes dependent on alternate possible courses of action and to choose which course of action to follow and in so doing to behave in a manner such that the agent’s choice appears, both to itself and to an outside observer, to be reasoned but not consistently predictable.

Do you agre with this definition? If not, would you care to propose your preferred definition?

There is nothing in my definition of free will which is incompatible with a deterministic world (if you think there is, please do explain what you think it is).

If the choices I make every day are a result of deterministic forces- for example, I decided to go to the gym instead of the cafe today because neuron A fired (because of the potato chip I ate last night), instead of neuron B- then that choice was not made by some by a "me" but by the fact that I ate the potato chip, which was further caused by some other biochemical existing conditions.

The truth of your statement depends on how “me” is defined. A physicalist would say that neuron A and neuron B, and the causes of these neurons firing, are all integral parts of “me”, therefore whether neuron A fires or neuron B fires is a choice made by “me”.

I think the normal idea of free will is that there is a "me" inside of my body that, despite the fact that the potato chip will cause neuron A to fire in a deterministic biochemical chain, the "me" inside causes neuron B to fire because that's what "me" wanted to do at that time.

As I said, a physicalist would say that the neurons and the causes of these neurons firing are all tied up as an integral part of “me”. If you wish to say there is in addition to this another part of “me” which causes neurons to fire then with respect all you have done is to replace one deterministic process with another – all you are saying is that it is this other part of “me” which causes neuron B to fire, instead of something else causing neuron B to fire. “Me” is still part of the deterministic chain.

Furthermore, this "me" would probably not be identifiable using an assay, through interferometry, x-ray diffraction, or other known methods.

Whether “me” is identifiable or not is not really the issue (this relates to epistemology). What is the issue is whether “me” operates deterministically or not.

I guess if you redefined freewill the way you did, it would be consistent with a deterministic universe, but I always thought the only relevant definition of free will was that in terms of a spiritual material being its agent that was distinct from the physical material that was purely deterministic. You know, the soul controlling the physical body kind of stuff.

Again, “the soul controlling the human body” does not eliminate determinism, it simply places the “soul” (whatever that is) in the deterministic chain of events.

This is not to say that I can prove nor agree that free will exists in the latter sense, only that this is the definition that has more political consequences. Of course since we haven't succeeded in building a conscious computer, free will under your definition is also not empirically justified.

Why does a definition need to be empirically justified? A definition is simply that – a definition.

Once free will has been defined in a particular way, one can then ask questions such as “is this definition compatible with determinism?” and “is this definition such that free will could actually exist?” and “what kind of free will is this anyway?”.

One can argue about the merits of a particular definition in this sense, but I do not see that it needs to be empirically justified.

MF

 

[Royce]

Agreed. But my point is this is a limit to our epistemic ability, it says nothing about the true (ontic) nature of the particle.

No, that's my point and the point of Quantum Mechanics. What I'm describing is the ontic properties and behavior of quantum particles. It has nothing to do with epistemic ability or knowledge. It even defies common sense or human experience.

How do you know this? This seems to be a matter of unjustified faith. Where is the experimental evidence to support this statement?

Epistemicly speaking, I don't know this. I only know what I've read in a number of different books by a number of different authors. They all agree and state the same thing. The quantum world is ruled by pure chance and probability. It is not deterministic ontically or epistemicly.

This is related (once again) to our epistemic abilities. It says nothing about the true (ontic) nature of the particle’s behaviour.[/QOUTE]

This has nothing to do with our epistemic ablities and everything to do with ontic reality. That is a common misconception of those who don't really understand quantum mechanics and electro-dynamics.

Again, “the best that can be done” reflects an epistemic limit, not an ontic limit.

Wrong! See above. Quit making assumption about something that you are not familiar with. Look it up for yourself.

Epistemology again.

With resepct, this statement is incorrect. You have not shown this, neither has it been shown (IMHO) in any experiment, ever. Many people “assume” that epistemic indeterminability necessarily implies ontic indeterminism, but this is at best a “belief” or a “faith” and not an experimentally verified fact.


With respect, you are wrong - it has not been proven even once. If you think it has, please provide an example where you think ontic indeterminism, as opposed to epistemic indeterminability, has been “proven”.


Incorrect. There are quantum physicists who believe the same as you, and they are mistaken.

Please see "QED" by Richard Feynman. There are others. You just keep digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself make assumption about that which you are obviously unfamiliar with. This is not epistemical knowledge but ontic experiements and knowledge about ontic quantum particle behavior.

 

[Royce]

Once again this discussion has reduce to physicalist vs non-physicalist and a deterministic vs nondeterministic universe. It is no longer about free will nor Libertarianism.
I have been an active participant in this forum for over two years and these positions have been discussed to exhaustion time and time again. Facts and science have nothing to do with the subjects and it is a matter of belief and faith which side one chooses.
There is no logic, no reason, no scientific fact nor experiment that will change the mind of one whose mind is made up; nor, is there any real solution to the dilemma. This discussion has been going on for centuries and the more we learn and know the more we realize that we know so little, there is so much more to know.
To me it is simple and obvious, just as simple and obvious to you that I am wrong and you are right. If a system contains paradoxes and contradictions it cannot be complete and completely correct. There are no paradoxes nor contradictions in reality only in our philosophies and sciences. This should tell us all something but it apparently doesn't tell us enough to change our minds or way of thinking.
My only suggestion is to get your head out your books written by people that know no more than you do and look around you. look at yourself and your own mind. Learn how and what you think and why you think what you do.
Look at reality and believe and trust what you see and experience as that is your only true touch with reality.
I am using the collective "you" here and am not pointing or talking to any specific person. Once again I am willing and anxious to discuss Libertarianism politically or philosophically with anyone who cares to do so. I will no longer discuss nor respond to any other topic in this thread.

 

[Billy T]

No, that's my point and the point of Quantum Mechanics. What I'm describing is the ontic properties and behavior of quantum particles. It has nothing to do with epistemic ability or knowledge. It even defies common sense or human experience ...

I hope that you don't cease to participate (as indicated in your post 38) - Philosophers should not be unwilling to examine things physicist report as facts. IMHO MF has done a better job of this that you. You are only asserting that the UP of QM proves the universe is nondeterministic without even acknowledging, much less answering, MF's argument that it could be deterministic with the UP providing only a limit (epistemic) on determinability.

Certainly your argument that "It even defies common sense or human experience" is an extremely weak one even by your own standards of experimental tests/evidence. For two examples:

(1)Single photon interfering with itself by traveling two different path is also a defiance of common sense and human experience but none the less true.
(2)Quantum entanglement (also well confirmed by experiment) is so strongly in conflict with "common sense" and "human experience" that they can be discarded as any reliable standard with which to judge wether or not the universe is fundamentally deterministic or non deterministic.

Why not try to defend your assertions rather than leave?

 

[moving finger]

Once again this discussion has reduce to physicalist vs non-physicalist and a deterministic vs nondeterministic universe. It is no longer about free will nor Libertarianism.

I fail to see how one can have a meaningful discussion about free will without discussing the determinism vs indeterminism issue. Can you suggest how this could be done?

Facts and science have nothing to do with the subjects and it is a matter of belief and faith which side one chooses.

If you really believe this then (with respect) what is the point of raising the topic for discussion in the first place?

There is no logic, no reason, no scientific fact nor experiment that will change the mind of one whose mind is made up;

Especially if one is not an open-minded or rational thinker.

This discussion has been going on for centuries and the more we learn and know the more we realize that we know so little, there is so much more to know.

There will always be people who insist on clinging to emotion and intuition, and who refuse to think rationally and logically, I agree.

To me it is simple and obvious, just as simple and obvious to you that I am wrong and you are right.

It is not a question of it "being simple and obvious", it is a question of being able to defend one's beliefs with rational argument.

If a system contains paradoxes and contradictions it cannot be complete and completely correct.

This seems a tautology to me - of course a system containing contradictions is not correct - by definition!

There are no paradoxes nor contradictions in reality only in our philosophies and sciences.

Do you have paradoxes & contradictions in your philosophy? That's a shame. I don't have any in mine.

This should tell us all something but it apparently doesn't tell us enough to change our minds or way of thinking.

Yep, it tells me there is something wrong with your philosophy.

My only suggestion is to get your head out your books written by people that know no more than you do and look around you. look at yourself and your own mind. Learn how and what you think and why you think what you do.
Look at reality and believe and trust what you see and experience as that is your only true touch with reality.

With respect I suggest you follow your own advice.

Some of us would do better to become more rational and more open-minded, and to stop simply believing in naive intuitions.

Again with respect, Royce, it seems IMHO that you are upset that others should dare to question and challenge your beliefs, and you are then unwilling in the face of questions and challenges to defend those beliefs. That's a pity, but it's your loss rather than ours.

May your god go with you.

MF

 

[Billy T]

Note to Royce

I read your essay in the first post this thread, and liked it very much - Essentially agree with your views there totally. But the things you say there about free will do not seem to me to be in conflict with what MF is saying on the same subject or his views on determinism.

I don't want to come off as an apologist for MF. I am hoping I can find a logically acceptable way to support idea that a free will, of a more libertarian variety, can exist.

For more than two decades, I thought this clearly impossible for any system governed by physics (UP of QM does not provide anything more than coin flipping does for FW.) Thus I was surprized to find a genuine free will possibility might fall out of a revision I made in understand how perceptions works and no longer completely agree with MF, but I can not refute his logic.

See thread "what price free will" for our (MF's and mine) discussion and separate positions, if interested. Also in attachment to first post of that thread you can read, again if interested:
(1) Three proofs as to why the generally accepted ideas about perception are wrong (but no proof that mine are correct. ) and
(2) the new view of what I think we are and how we perceive, which may permit a more libertarian free will than MF's logic permits. Unfortuantely I can not rule out the possibility that this more preferred FW ( than what MF is offering) is anything more than an illusion, very universally shared. Again

 

[Royce]

I fail to see how one can have a meaningful discussion about free will without discussing the determinism vs indeterminism issue. Can you suggest how this could be done?

No, not really but, there is no solution. You for instance don't agree that QM supports indeterminism where I do. I don't believe that our choices or our universe are deterministic and you can offer no support other than a physicalist belief. As I said this same argument has been going on for centuries and nothing has been decided nor concluded yet.

If you really believe this then (with respect) what is the point of raising the topic for discussion in the first place?

It is not that I believe is as stated but that this is apparently the case as no amount of logic, reason or science has yet to convince anyone, at least here at the PF's to change their mind or stance.

Especially if one is not an open-minded or rational thinker.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you and other physicalist/ determinist. If fact my first impulse was to tell you not to be so hard on yourself. This is after all just a, sometimes not too, friendly discussion.

Do you have paradoxes & contradictions in your philosophy? That's a shame. I don't have any in mine.

Yep, it tells me there is something wrong with your philosophy.

With respect I suggest you follow your own advice.

Some of us would do better to become more rational and more open-minded, and to stop simply believing in naive intuitions.

Again with respect, Royce, it seems IMHO that you are upset that others should dare to question and challenge your beliefs, and you are then unwilling in the face of questions and challenges to defend those beliefs. That's a pity, but it's your loss rather than ours.

No I'm not upset, though admittedly it could appear that I am. It is just that we who have been here for the last couple of years have gone over all of this time and time again. It does become frustrating that even when I try to bring up new topics it digresses back down to the old same stuff.

As far as QM and QED are concerned it again seems to be insolvable. We may have read the exact same words and got two completely different opposing understandings from it. This is a case where I know that I am right as it took years of reading and studying to come to my understanding of the subject and it is supported by a number of prominent authors in this field. Yet you do not accept it as support and say that I have a closed mind, a naive belief rather than careful logical reasoning to come to an understanding that is in agreement with that of other far more expert and knowledgeable people in the field than I am. Look back in the archives for some of these threads. there are numerous references and links to sites supporting vertually every topic and every viewpoint.
You do not offer any support for your views but resort to putting mine down and claiming that I am closed minded and naive. As I read this I was thinking that he obviously has no support so must negate the support that I offer. I was thinking that he is closed minded and naive so the natural choice is to accuse me of being such.
Yes I am naive, naive enough to believe that most people here discuss their topics in good faith and naive enough to believe words have common usage meanings that everyone knows and accepts. I am also knowledgeable and worldly enough to know when a discussion has become a hopless interminable argument. I'm just not smart nor strong enough to let it drop and die the death that it deserves.

 

[Royce]

I read your essay in the first post this thread, and liked it very much - Essentially agree with your views there totally. But the things you say there about free will do not seem to me to be in conflict with what MF is saying on the same subject or his views on determinism.

Thank you, Billy T. I agree that I don't think that he and I disagree much at all about free will or responsibility. Our disagreement stems from his and my stands on determinism. As MF said deterministic free will is not incompatible with libertarianism.

 

[moving finger]

I agree that I don't think that he and I disagree much at all about free will or responsibility. Our disagreement stems from his and my stands on determinism. As MF said deterministic free will is not incompatible with libertarianism.

With respect, I do not think that I ever said deterministic free will is not incompatible with libertarianism? I think that depends on how one defines libertarianism. Granted the "Royce definition" of libertarianism may not be incompatible with deterministic free will, but I humbly suggest that most libertarians would in fact say they believe their "free will" does NOT operate deterministically.

Added later :

The following adapted from a website suggested by loseyourname in another thread :

Compatibilism is the doctrine that determinism is logically compatible or consistent with what is said to be a single idea of freedom that really concerns us and with a related kind of moral responsibility -- the freedom in question being voluntariness.

Incompatibilism is the doctrine that determinism is logically incompatible with what is said to be the single idea of freedom that concerns us and with another kind of moral responsibility -- the freedom in question being origination or origination as well as voluntariness.

Strictly speaking, Compatibilism does not assert the truth of determinism, but only the consistency of this doctrine with our idea of freedom and moral responsibility. What is called 'soft determinism', in contrast, does take determinism to be true, and take our actual freedom to consist in no more than what is consistent with it -- voluntariness. What is called 'hard determinism' also takes determinism to be true, but takes freedom to consist in what is incompatible with it and cannot exist with it -- origination as well as voluntariness.

Strictly speaking, Incompatibilism does not claim the reality of either determinism or the freedom with which it is concerned. As just remarked, some Incompatibilists take determinism to be a fact and hence draw the conclusion we are unfree. The common breed, however, take their freedom to be a fact, and hence draw the conclusion that determinism is false. These Incompatibilists have been known as Libertarians .

Based on the above, I humbly suggest that "deterministic free will" is incompatible with "Libertarianism"

MF

 

[moving finger]

I fail to see how one can have a meaningful discussion about free will without discussing the determinism vs indeterminism issue. Can you suggest how this could be done? .

No, not really but, there is no solution. You for instance don't agree that QM supports indeterminism where I do.

Incorrect. I do not agree that QM implies the world is necessarily (ontically) indeterministic. My argument is based on the fact that the most we can conclude from QM is that the world is epistemically indeterminable, which is not the same as ontically indeterministic. If you wish to conclude that epistemically indeterminable equates to ontically indeterministic then, with respect, you need to show why (or accept that this is a matter of faith and not science).

I don't believe that our choices or our universe are deterministic and you can offer no support other than a physicalist belief.

Support for what? I am not saying that the world is necessarily deterministic. All I am saying is that there is no evidence that the world is NOT deterministic. If you think there is such evidence, then please do present it.

The important point is that I do not need to “believe” in determinism in order to validate my philosophy. My philosophy does not rest on either determinism or indeterminism. My concept of free will is independent of these assumptions.

However, it seems to me that your concept of free will is incompatible with determinism, therefore your philosophy assumes the world must be indeterministic, and yet can you show how your concept of free will is compatible with indeterminism?

As I said this same argument has been going on for centuries and nothing has been decided nor concluded yet.

And your point is….. that we should give up? Surely not.

If you really believe this then (with respect) what is the point of raising the topic for discussion in the first place? .

It is not that I believe is as stated but that this is apparently the case as no amount of logic, reason or science has yet to convince anyone, at least here at the PF's to change their mind or stance.

As I said, especially if one is not an open-minded or rational thinker.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you and other physicalist/ determinist.

You misunderstand. I am not a determinist. As I have said, my philosphy and my definition of free will does not assume either determinism or indeterminism, it is compatible with both. I’m not sure about your philosophy, however.

If fact my first impulse was to tell you not to be so hard on yourself. This is after all just a, sometimes not too, friendly discussion.

Yes, I agree sometimes I do take it too seriously. Must get out more.

No I'm not upset, though admittedly it could appear that I am. It is just that we who have been here for the last couple of years have gone over all of this time and time again.

And you still keep coming back for more?

It does become frustrating that even when I try to bring up new topics it digresses back down to the old same stuff. .

Maybe because there are fundamental issues that need to be resolved before one can move on.

As far as QM and QED are concerned it again seems to be insolvable. We may have read the exact same words and got two completely different opposing understandings from it. This is a case where I know that I am right as it took years of reading and studying to come to my understanding of the subject and it is supported by a number of prominent authors in this field.

Sorry, Royce, in what do you think that “you are right”? Can you be specific please?

Yet you do not accept it as support and say that I have a closed mind, a naive belief rather than careful logical reasoning to come to an understanding that is in agreement with that of other far more expert and knowledgeable people in the field than I am.

I have never said that there are others more expert and knowledgeable in the field than you are. I am NOT the kind of person who feels the need to "seek the support of authority" – the only authority I recognise is reason and logic – anyone who purports to be authoritative but shuns reason and logic, I reject.

You do not offer any support for your views but resort to putting mine down and claiming that I am closed minded and naive.

With respect, Royce, I try to justify everything I say from a rational point of view, and I am not the one making “claims” in this thread that need to be supported. I have all along simply been offering constructive criticism of the claims that others have made. But if you think that I have made my own statements without adequate support then please do tell me what they are and I will support them.

As I read this I was thinking that he obviously has no support so must negate the support that I offer. I was thinking that he is closed minded and naive so the natural choice is to accuse me of being such.

Support for what? Again, if you consider that I need to support anything that I have said then please just say so.

Yes I am naive, naive enough to believe that most people here discuss their topics in good faith and naive enough to believe words have common usage meanings that everyone knows and accepts.

With respect, I think we both know that “common usage” meanings can be different for different people, and it does not harm to clarify exactly what one means, in the interests of common understanding. I cannot see why you would have a problem with clarifying your meanings.

I am also knowledgeable and worldly enough to know when a discussion has become a hopless interminable argument. I'm just not smart nor strong enough to let it drop and die the death that it deserves.

We each have a choice.

Regards

MF

 

[moving finger]

I say, okay, you are what you are. What you are is a criminal and if you do a criminal act you go to jail.

Do you not think there are other possible solutions?

Aberrant social behaviour, of which the class of criminal acts is a subset, is indeed something that society needs to address and to try to control and minimise, but "go to jail" is not the only way to address the problem.

I do not accept that everyone can be put into a box of either "you are OK, you can go free" or "you are not OK, you must go to jail".

Jail and other forms of punishment can be seen as a deterrent to potential offenders, and it can be seen also as a way of "removing the problem from society", but there are sometimes more constructive ways to help offenders to become more socially responsible individuals.

MF

 

[Billy T]

...Jail and other forms of punishment can be seen as a deterrent to potential offenders, and it can be seen also as a way of "removing the problem from society", ...

It may be a little off thread, so I'll be brief:
I'm not a fan of capital punishment and doubt the deterrent value of the typical prison term. Seems more like a school on how not to get caught next time in many cases. Unfortunately, I can no longer document what I read many years ago about the period when England hung pick-pockets in the public square. In one streak of "pick-pocket hangings", (four in a row as I remember) the crime had taken place in the crowd assembled to watch the last hanging of a pick-pocket!

 

[Royce]

Do you not think there are other possible solutions?

Aberrant social behaviour, of which the class of criminal acts is a subset, is indeed something that society needs to address and to try to control and minimise, but "go to jail" is not the only way to address the problem.

I agree that literially jail is not the only way to address the problem. Nor did I mean it literally. The position of Libertarianism, or at least my understanding of it is that if one violates the rights of another then one own rights are forfited. If the violater has emotional or psychological problems that can be successfully treated then that treatment becomes manditory. Unfortunately there has been very little success in treating crimminal or anti-social behavior. Very simply if a person cannot responsibly live and produce in his society then he cannot live in that society. It is a contract after all that has to be maintained by both parties. Nor should responsible productive members of that society be punished or fined because of anothers behavioral problems. They should not have to pay for the crime(s) of another.

I do not accept that everyone can be put into a box of either "you are OK, you can go free" or "you are not OK, you must go to jail".

Jail and other forms of punishment can be seen as a deterrent to potential offenders, and it can be seen also as a way of "removing the problem from society", but there are sometimes more constructive ways to help offenders to become more socially responsible individuals.

No, everyone cannot and should not be put in a box. Only if someone breaks the law, violates the rights of another, does a criminal act should the society become involved. Society, the state, has no right or need to pass judgement on any of its members, citizen, unless that citizen becomes or is a criminal.

There are of course civil conflicts of rights and interests where intentional criminal behaviour is not involved and the state may have to become involved or be requested to become involved to arbitrate or resolve the issue.

It is not the responsiblity of the state to treat or rehabilitate habitual criminals at the expense of the rest of its citizens. This of course is an idealist view point and not practical in real life. Unlike Cuba we do not have the luxery of shipping our convicted criminals to the United States to get rid of them and simply exiling them is not a viable solution either as this only passes the problem to someone else. What does the state do it they keep coming back. Prison does take the out of society for a while but does not cure the problem either and cost the citizens of the state a small fortune for every person in prison. I do not have a better solution. It is a dilema. I just know that I nor the rest of society don't owe them anything.