romansh

The interesting thing genetics (and evolution in general) is a reflection of the environment and experience itself is also very much the environment. Other things might be the way atoms and fundamental particles interact. So "I" becomes an interesting pronoun.

I must admit I like the story of the fall too. But I don't think anyone here is changing the laws of nature ... I'm just asking that we understand them. Our (at least for most of us) understanding of nature is predicated on cause and effect. I don't think consciousness is any different. It would appear our consciousness is very much a historical introspection. Albeit a very recent introspection. Thinking in terms of good and evil is a pragmatic way of looking at things ... but I don't think the laws of nature actually concern themselves with good and evil. To get back into the "garden of Eden" perhaps we should stop thing in terms of good and evil.

Another version of Galen Strawson's argument http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/your-move-the-maze-of-free-will/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

So is it a fair translation to say you don't know whether there are any parts of you that are independent of cause? And what about, do you think there are any parts of you that are independent of cause? You said the universe is not responsible for anything. Are you saying you are a self-made man? (This brings the wag's addendum to mind) Thereby relieving God of an almighty responsibility. How about this and responsibility? http://www.naturalism.org/strawson_interview.htm So the universe and how it unfolds is somehow independent of free will? can we clarify what this discussion is about?

Again you don't answer my question Dutch, what part of you is actually free from cause? If the answer is nothing or I don't know fair enough. Whether a limited being can know the full extent of the universe is irrelevant to the question of free will and how the universe actually unfolds. If the answer is I don't know a belief in free will becomes interesting. If the answer is nothing then we are not talking about free will per se. Regarding novelty and new ... does evolution create novelty and new creatures? If so, does that mean evolution itself or the universe unfolding has free will? Novelty and new might be important, but that does not mean they are tied to an absence of cause. There is something about the concept of free will of an independent intrinsic actor that comforting to humans.

Yes there are many fragments to this ... all I want to know is which bits of you if any are independent of cause. You say you will not use responsibility ... yet you say the universe is not responsible? You must be using the moral sense of responsible, but you were not going to use moral either. It is difficult I understand. I have no problem with the use of evolution and the universe unfolding ... though I did not really understand the remainder of the paragraph. I never claimed indeterminism is a result of incomplete knowledge. But on the whole it is smoke smoke screen that gets in a way of fruitful conversation. You are speaking to an agnostic here Dutch ... I don't even know what can be known. As for the concept of random here is a nice essay on the subject. At the bottom of the page there is link Can you behave randomly? ... interesting if you have an hour to spare. Not quite what I said but that is OK for now. Yes I agree you are at an intersection of causes ... the question remains do you believe you are a free agent that is somehow independent of those causes whether they be classical or quantum? Again yes you make choices but the choice that you make is it independent of the antecedent causes? Yes we can read that into Jesus' teachings we can also read that we should not judge .. ie parse into good and bad. You can read that into the fall as well. Satisfaction is a red herring here. Here you fall into for me what is a fairly common response to the argument. Because Laplace was wrong, determinism is false; then we can consider libertarianism as true. It is not the number of choices that are available to an organism simple or complex that is at issues here ... it is the underlying mechanism. I agree a complex organism will have a more complex mechanism. No freedom here that I can see. And yet we can predict the near future with some limited success. A quick look at my work calendar will allow me know what is coming (not in absolute certainty) ... And I predict the Palestinian Israeli conflict will continue for some years with the normal ups and downs. The fact that we can't predict accurately is interesting, but irrelevant to free will. You are arguing for a two hundred year old Laplacian understanding of free will. We have moved on. Again which part of you is independent of cause so we can study that bit in a bit more detail?

Computers having free will? I think this is my point ... we can define free will into existence. Your computer is influenced by its environment (cultural and societal settings) and its construction. It certainly is cable of making choices ... take a look at the Boolean logic available in the spreadsheet. The computer responds to its environment. But is it free of cause ... I would say no.

Either sense ... though more the first one. I had it in the back of my mind ... I certainly did not exclude it from our discussion. Did you? Plus I would have hoped that when doubting the concept of morality the second sense of responsibility becomes more prominent or self evident. I was thinking more that understanding of how the universe unfolds leads to acceptance (as opposed to apathy. I can still dislike actions and be an activist for a cause, just that I am accepting of my opponent. I copied you question verbatim Dutch. I also answered it. Perhaps you could have a go at answering it? I must admit I would answer no to your question. In both cases the universe is responsible for the organism, complex or simple. If you and Mr Coyne think your will is free from chance and necessity then fine. Chance does nothing to free the will. Now if you could have a go at answering the my question. Which bit of you is free from cause?

Dutch ... what we do when hold a portion of an endless list of interconnected hierarchies accountable is draw an arbitrary boundary within that endless list. I will admit it is a useful boundary ... but arbitrary nonetheless. Responsibility has two meanings ... there is the moral responsibility that we assign to one another and responsible in the sense of the sun is responsible for much of life on Earth or an electrical short was responsible for the fire. That you think some of us don't see the richness of evolution and that we ignore creativity and novelty is a strange position to take. Now I have tried to answer your questions perhaps you could answer mine for a bit. Which bit of you is free from cause and effect?

Dutch Does a more complex organism have more free will than a simple one? I don't think so. Its behaviours can be more complex that's all. An bacterium responds to inputs ... so do I. Morality? If we have no free will then the concept of morality seems to be a non sequitur. That does not mean I don't feel the relevant emotions like guilt shame pride etc that evolution has endowed me with a capacity for. Evolution has endowed me with the capacity to see the colour blue. I don't have to believe blue exists intrinsically. Regarding mediation in the school environment ... is it the teacher who should be held accountable for a lack of skills to deal with a wayward pupil. Perhaps it is the principal for not providing the training or the government for not providing the funding. In each case we draw an arbitrary boundary of where we think the blame lies and who to hold accountable. Or we can try fixing the perceived problem. I agree we tend to live compatibilist lives ... interestingly it does not have to be that way.

Joseph Have I always not believed in free will? Definitely not. Did my belief in free will affect my ability to explore reality ... I think so. I never put my scientific scrutiny to the subject because I had an unconditional belief. So did my past belief (in free will) prevent my exploration? Obviously the answer is no ... but it certainly did inhibit that exploration.

Does a city with all it's inhabitants have free will, for it is far more complex than one person?

Perhaps it is not a dubious assumption? Dutch Now we shift our attention to intent. Here' s a question, do we actually have intent or do we confabulate? It is much like the old philosophical question ... The red chair I am looking at, is it actually red? Are our intents any more free of cause than are our choices? Without cause and effect (chemistry and physics) would we have an intent (will)? Is there any part of you that is not a result of cause and effect? If the answer is no, then the ramifications of this are worth exploring. If your answer is yes, then I would be interested in hearing more about this. We dance around saying we have "limited" free will ... What in fact we are doing is changing the definition and not paying attention to cause and effect.

It's more of a question does the concept of free will even make sense? Rivers choose their course, computers make choices based on their input. The list goes on. When philosophers discuss free will it is very different to having the ability to choose. The question is are our choices independent of cause and effect? If you think only certain combinations of molecules have free will, fine. Do Kant and James carry more weight, they believed in free will? They could see the inherent contradiction in the compatibilist position. The influences we are talking about, are they some way independent of chemistry and physics? I think not, what do you think Dutch.

Yes we can define free will however we want. The problem of cause and effect does not go away though does it? If people want to see choice as free will, then I think they are missing out on an exploration of our reality.

No, or at least not for me. Firstly my personal experience, when I think of something new, I find it is a mixture of other ideas, sometimes I can point to the origins of the ideas sometimes I can't. Just because I can't point to the origin does not mean there isn't one and we are still silent on the chemistry and physics that went into forming the idea.

Kant thought of this as a wretched subterfuge and James described it as a quagmire of evasion. We can define free will however we want .... Eg the ability to choose not to eat ice-cream . This has nothing to do with the underlying question of what the discussion around free will (for philosophers) is all about. ... What are the underlying causes for our ability to make choices and can we ever be free of them?

God (with an upper case G) Simply a pale reflection of our human desires, fears and foibles. An explanation of where we might be going. Whereas god is the universe and all who are unfolding.

I must admit the way Dutch has used free will, for me does not address the nature of free. If our will is a result of a mesh of a myriad of causes, then this becomes an interesting concept of free.

If we don't have free will ... We will essentially come to one of two conclusions 1) we could come to the conclusion there is no intrinsic self, and accept our roles in the unfolding universe 2) we could still believe we have free will, but at this point we believe we hake on some god like properties ... Eg the ability to act independently of the unfolding universe. In some way we think we are separate from the universe. I suppose we could remain uncertain regarding the two options. But if this is the case, I would explore both options very carefully. I agree with Dutch's there is no meant. But I disagree with his evolution giving us free will. evolution is not separate from the universe unfolding, and I don't think bacteria, mammals or large primates in general are either.

It is your knowledge of what god has or does not have that belies your belief in a transcendent god.

Paul No one is advocating that you should or should not be an activist. No one is saying you should or should not become angry disappointed ... Insert emotion [here]. What I am saying is I try not to have these negative emotions ... Not because it is bad in some way, but that it is just pointless to have them. When I I think something is bad, for me it means simply that I don't like it. It is ok not to like something, but I do understand than that is just a reflection of me, which in turn is a reflection of the universe. Saying things happen as they are meant happen is simply a reflection of our need to have some sort of meaning. Things happen. Full stop. No one is saying you should not try and change the world. There is a subtle difference between acceptance and apathy which I don't seem to have made clear.

In an absolute sense neither. In a societal sense it's a complete no no. It is like asking is evolution good or bad ..... The same mechanism that gives us a wondrous variety of life also gives us cancer and a whole range of illnesses. A man started molesting his step daughter. In prison he was discovered to have tumour in a part of his brain where sexuality is processed. The tumour was removed and his desire was removed. Slowly his desires returned as did his tunour. Again his desires disappeared when the tumour was removed. Is this man good or bad? Is the sun's radiation good or bad? It gives us life and death.

Just possibly they are not good or bad, full stop. When a hyena kills a lion cub is that good or bad?

Then Larry it appears to me you don't believe in a transcendent god.