What are the benefits of understanding our free will?

[StringJunky]

Can't coercion be a proxy for deterministic in the sense that one can decide to act contrary to the coercive influence.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Can't coercion be a proxy for deterministic in the sense that one can decide to act contrary to the coercive influence.

Yes I think so, sort of.

Every action must be the result of free will, determinism, something else, or some combination thereof.

 

Take the modern automatic half barrier level crossing.

There is coercion in play. The law says that drivers must stop and wait for the barrier to lift.

It is coercion because of the will of Parliament, combined with a threat.

However it is not full forcing and we have recorded notable accidents over the years where a driver has chosen to act to the contrary and try to drive around the barriers.

In the old fashioned legal philiosophy, yes although compulsion (coercion) still applied it was considered better to

"Make it impossible for the driver to do anything else"

So a man would come out and physically close off the entire road by shutting very solid heavy gates so no one could drive through until they were reopened.

This is not probabilistic but where totally impartial circumstance forces or dictates or determines the course of action.

 

What is your opinion ?

 

 

[joigus]

On 11/26/2023 at 10:43 AM, Alysdexic said:

Nature is a box. Everything real, including brains, exists inside this box.

Interesting notion. What's outside that box? Nothing? The unreal? The unnatural?

On 11/27/2023 at 3:31 PM, StringJunky said:

"Ummm... I'd love a cream cake". (determinism), but I'm not going to have one as I'm on a diet. (freewill).

True or false?

I constructed this to be analysed. 

Nice.

"Guess what. I couldn't help myself. I finally ate it! And I made another one, because I always wanted to have my cake and eat it too. I knew it all along. And what's more... I think I understand why I always do that." (determinism again... Or the illusion of it?)

Maybe free will and determinism are about time frame.

Does that make sense?

[sethoflagos]

37 minutes ago, studiot said:

It is coercion because of the will of Parliament, combined with a threat.

Got to distinguish between possible differences in everyday use and the meaning of 'coercion' in philosophical literature.

The latter seems to me to be more absolute. Less absolute contexts would be seen more as 'influence' or some such.

Edited December 5, 2023 by sethoflagos
sp

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Got to distinguish between possible differences in everyday use and the meaning of 'coercion' in philosophical literature.

The latter seems to me to be more absolute. Less absolute contexts would be seen more as 'influence' or some such.

I give no quarter to vthose who take a word they did not invent, create a special meaning for it, and then fail to make their special usage plain when they trot it out infront of others.

 

To coercion implies a clash of at least two separate and distinct wills, possibly accompanied by threats before the event, but not necessarily involing itself in the event.

Forcing implies a direct intervention in the event and its course, perhaps changing the circumstances (boundary conditions) and thereby changing the event. This can be and is given mathematical status.

[sethoflagos]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I give no quarter to vthose who take a word they did not invent, create a special meaning for it, and then fail to make their special usage plain when they trot it out infront of others.

See etymology

To be fair, the word only began to lose its more absolute sense in the 19th century. Its use in philosophical and law literature predates that by some margin, so it isn't the philosophers who altered the meaning, it's us.

Compare with our use of 'calculus'. Not much to do with pebble counting in the regular use found on this site. 

Edited December 5, 2023 by sethoflagos

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Interesting notion. What's outside that box? Nothing? The unreal? The unnatural?

Nice.

"Guess what. I couldn't help myself. I finally ate it! And I made another one, because I always wanted to have my cake and eat it too. I knew it all along. And what's more... I think I understand why I always do that." (determinism again... Or the illusion of it?)

Maybe free will and determinism are about time frame.

Does that make sense?

Cheers. How do you mean wrt timeframe?

[joigus]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Cheers. How do you mean wrt timeframe?

Hello. I mean once they've happened actions seem like they were bound to happen. At least more than they seemed to be before they happen.

[geordief]

3 hours ago, joigus said:

Interesting notion. What's outside that box? Nothing? The unreal? The unnatural?

Nice.

"Guess what. I couldn't help myself. I finally ate it! And I made another one, because I always wanted to have my cake and eat it too. I knew it all along. And what's more... I think I understand why I always do that." (determinism again... Or the illusion of it?)

Maybe free will and determinism are about time frame.

Does that make sense?

I had the idea a few months back  that everything was determined (about me) in your frame and everything was free will (about me ) in my frame.

And vice versa.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

I had the idea a few months back  that everything was determined (about me) in your frame and everything was free will (about me ) in my frame.

And vice versa.

Ah. The vice versa has interesting ethical consequences. A blatant double standard that one sees quite often.

[geordief]

45 minutes ago, joigus said:

Ah. The vice versa has interesting ethical consequences. A blatant double standard that one sees quite often.

I don't follow.

I put the "and vice versa" in to fill things out and because it was obviously necessary. 

 

But I don't see what double standard is in there.

 

Can you try and explain "my" idea to me?(I freely admit to being easily confused -especially by anything to do with relativity)

(I might have an idea  of the double standard you have in mind -is it the one where we criticise others for behaviours that we  find ourselves able to justify in ourselves - common or garden  hypocrisy?)

Edited December 5, 2023 by geordief

[joigus]

28 minutes ago, geordief said:

I don't follow.

Sorry. I was in a hurry.

I meant:

You did a bad thing => You did it because you chose to do it ("free will" for you)

I did a bad thing => I did it because I had no choice ("determinism" for me)

That's the double standard I meant.

Does that make sense?

I've got to get up to speed here, really. I missed much stuff.

[studiot]

4 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

See etymology

To be fair, the word only began to lose its more absolute sense in the 19th century. Its use in philosophical and law literature predates that by some margin, so it isn't the philosophers who altered the meaning, it's us.

Compare with our use of 'calculus'. Not much to do with pebble counting in the regular use found on this site. 

Its not the actual words I care about but the enormous and significant differences in the meaning I outlined.

So can you suggest alternative words for my terms coerce,  force,  and constrain.

If these alternative can be shown to represent the  different ideas better than I will happily adopt them.

[sethoflagos]

14 minutes ago, joigus said:

You did a bad thing => You did it because you chose to do it ("free will" for you)

I did a bad thing => I did it because I had no choice ("determinism" for me)

Alice did a bad thing => Alice had no choice, but it is what she was inclined to do even if alternate courses of action were available to her ("compatibilist" ?) 

I did a bad thing => I had several choices but simply miscalculated due to some freak quantum event. Possibly. ("A plague on both your houses")

 

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

So can you suggest alternative words for my terms coerce,  force,  and constrain.

Only you can define your own terminology. And that doesn't even begin to address transferability across different languages. 

Is the 'true' German translation of 'force' die Macht or die Kraft for example. In some contexts they may be interchangeable, in others not. 

The 1st movement of Hindemith's trumpet concerto is marked to be played 'Mit Kraft'. There have been many arguments on English speaking trumpet forums over the years as to what this actually means. For 'reasons' I interpret it as 'like a machine' based on context rather than linguistics. Others differ. I don't dispute their interpretation but won't accept them declaring mine invalid without a bit of a scrap.

Concensus meanings are only valid if arrived at by concensus. Clarity can be very elusive.

[geordief]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Sorry. I was in a hurry.

I meant:

You did a bad thing => You did it because you chose to do it ("free will" for you)

I did a bad thing => I did it because I had no choice ("determinism" for me)

That's the double standard I meant.

Does that make sense?

I've got to get up to speed here, really. I missed much stuff.

It makes sense but I don't think that that  would  be  an engrained attitude amongst people -at least  amongst people who appreciate that to see the whole picture you have to see both sides.

I suspect that that is what we all learn early on  but we choose (oops a choice word to use in a free will thread )to forget it when it becomes inconvenient.

Actually  ,come to think of it ,the question of (trying to) see things from the other's point of view is probably a far more important question than wondering whether free will exists  or determinism rules and  ,in this thread's question is there any practical or social consequence to the potential resolving of the issue. 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Only you can define your own terminology. And that doesn't even begin to address transferability across different languages. 

Is the 'true' German translation of 'force' die Macht or die Kraft for example. In some contexts they may be interchangeable, in others not. 

The 1st movement of Hindemith's trumpet concerto is marked to be played 'Mit Kraft'. There have been many arguments on English speaking trumpet forums over the years as to what this actually means. For 'reasons' I interpret it as 'like a machine' based on context rather than linguistics. Others differ. I don't dispute their interpretation but won't accept them declaring mine invalid without a bit of a scrap.

Concensus meanings are only valid if arrived at by concensus. Clarity can be very elusive.

You are the musician, not I.

But I have always understood that in English, and internationally, we borrow from the Italian, not the German.

And I see that there is a whole range of terms for playing vigorously, available, but none that I can see related to my version of coerce.  the middle one meaning emphasise would by marcato

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italian_musical_terms_used_in_English

 

The OED is not very helpful but seems to go along with my notion that coerce is reserved for some animate entity imposing its will on another as opposed to an inanimate entity the actions of an animate one.

[joigus]

6 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Alice did a bad thing => Alice had no choice, but it is what she was inclined to do even if alternate courses of action were available to her ("compatibilist" ?) 

I did a bad thing => I had several choices but simply miscalculated due to some freak quantum event. Possibly. ("A plague on both your houses")

 

This idea of "inclined to do" is another interesting fork in the pathway of analising the free-will problem. Is that what compatibilism is about after all?

It reminds me of this idea of propensities in quantum mechanics. Is it due to Karl Popper? I think so, but not sure... It goes like, Alice has a very high chance of doing such and such, because she has a strong propensity to it. So that, say, 90 times out of 100 she will do it. The other 10 she's won't (under same circumstances). Is she 100% free 10% of the time? Or is she 10% free 100% of the time? By this perhaps I mean I'm not sure about these questions unless I have a good working definition of it. A point that's come up before on this thread.

Your "miscalculation" statement reminds me of one time I thought maybe the whole question of free will is an ill-posed problem in the first place: Volition must be defined in terms of an action according to an intended result. Do we have any hope of squaring both at all? Everything we do is based on more or less blurry predictions of what will happen.

14 minutes ago, geordief said:

Actually  ,come to think of it ,the question of (trying to) see things from the other's point of view is probably a far more important question than wondering whether free will exists  or determinism rules and  ,in this thread's question is there any practical or social consequence to the potential resolving of the issue. 

Let me just agree with that. In that sense, what matters is a workable definition of when people cant adopt decisions in a way that's balanced, fair, law-abiding, and so on; as opposed to when people are acting under strong urges, biochemical impulses, contextual or biographical determinations, past trauma, etc. Easier said than done, of course. 

 

[sethoflagos]

34 minutes ago, studiot said:

And I see that there is a whole range of terms for playing vigorously, available, but none that I can see related to my version of coerce. 

Obbligato ("indispensible") springs to mind, as opposed to ad libitum (as you will). But Obbligato can also mean an alternate variation which moreorless reverses the meaning.

The sense of 'thou shalt not deviate' has a whole host of forms. Just those for tempo include

Quote

Italian
a battuta	in strict time (literally, with the beat)
aggiustatamente	strictly in time
alla misura	measured, in exact time
con giustezza	exactly, precisely
con precisione	with precision
deliberato	deliberately
diritto	direct, straight
giustamente	exactly, precisely
misurato	measured, in exact time
osservato	carefully observed, strict
preciso	with precision
rigore	strictness, rigor
rigore di tempo	strict tempo
ritmico	strict, rhythmic, measured
severo	strictly, tempo and expression exactly as marked
stabile	steady, firm
French
à la mesure	in strict time
en mesure	measured, strict
mesuré	measured, moderate, in exact time
rythmé	measured, rhythmical
German
abgemessen	measured; in strict time
mässig	measured, moderate
streng	severe, strict

Source: https://www.spindrift.com/Thesaurus/thestrict.php

 

But this is straying increasingly off topic. Apologies in advance.

18 minutes ago, joigus said:

Your "miscalculation" statement reminds me of one time I thought maybe the whole question of free will is an ill-posed problem in the first place:

Pretty much my position.

Consequently I find myself atheist to any form of absolute determinism and no more than agnostic regarding any form of absolute free will.

Arguably every situation is bit of both with a healthy dose of absurdity thrown in for good measure.

Post script: Arguably Alice could be 100% free 100% of the time. I see no absolute constraint here.

Edited December 6, 2023 by sethoflagos

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The sense of being a criminal has lost its gravitas, such that the behaviour-modifying potential of applying that label has been lost.

Some may say that the only viable occupation left for you after being admonished with such a label is the US Presidency. Impotent, indeed. 

3 hours ago, studiot said:

can you suggest alternative words for my terms coerce,  force,  and constrain.

Influence, nudge, and ring fence. 

Motivate, encourage, and restrict. 

Leverage, blackmail, and regulate.

 

I could go on, but this is hardly math we’re doing here and I suspect that’s the type of precision you’d prefer.

Alas, you won’t find it, as even when we use the same words their meaning differs from person to person and even within ourselves from yesterday to today. 

[Eise]

9 hours ago, joigus said:

You did a bad thing => You did it because you chose to do it ("free will" for you)

I did a bad thing => I did it because I had no choice ("determinism" for me)

 

You forgot the opposites:

• You did a good thing =>You did it because you had no choice ("determinism" for you)
• I did a good thing =>I did it because I chose to do it ("free will" for me)

It depends on the situation: do you want to avoid blame, or do you want to get praised... Take your pick!

7 hours ago, joigus said:

the whole question of free will is an ill-posed problem in the first place: Volition must be defined in terms of an action according to an intended result.

Precisely. Neurons do not act, nor do they have intentions. But we have. 

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

I can't believe this. You're demanding studies for the bleedin obvious now?

Yes, because it is not bleeding obvious. AFAIK there have many studies, that show that imprisonment does not help, in fact, show the opposite. Maybe @iNow has some interesting references?

[joigus]

36 minutes ago, Eise said:

You forgot the opposites:

• You did a good thing =>You did it because you had no choice ("determinism" for you)
• I did a good thing =>I did it because I chose to do it ("free will" for me)

It depends on the situation: do you want to avoid blame, or do you want to get praised... Take your pick!

Ah, but @geordief had already covered it:

12 hours ago, geordief said:

I had the idea a few months back  that everything was determined (about me) in your frame and everything was free will (about me ) in my frame.

And vice versa.

I was dealing with the "vice versa" version.  

39 minutes ago, Eise said:

Precisely. Neurons do not act, nor do they have intentions. But we have. 

So is this the essence of the compatibilist approach? That volition is emergent, or epiphenomenal, and it is every bit as non-delusional as temperature, or language, even though (or precisely because) it doesn't need to rest on a (hypothetical) micro-determinism?

There's a mouthful!  

[Eise]

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

So is this the essence of the compatibilist approach?

I wouldn't call it 'the essence', but 'essential', I think so, yes. Our minds are built up from simpler mechanisms. Just as a computer is built up on flip-flops, logical ports, which for them selves are also built up of smaller components (transistor, capacitors etc), but on higher level runs a program, e.g. a simulation of the universe.

58 minutes ago, joigus said:

That volition is emergent, or epiphenomenal, and it is every bit as non-delusional as temperature, or language, even though (or precisely because) it doesn't need to rest on a (hypothetical) micro-determinism?

There's a mouthful!  

Yes, too full... 

But... In the first place, not epiphenomenal. Epiphenomalism is in my eyes just another form of dualism. I prefer 'supervenience' as concept to describe the relationship between the brain and the mind. 

And in the second place, determinism is a necessary condition of free will. 

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

It's usually a last resort for less serious crimes, so you are in effect selecting the worst and most persistent for prison. People who have not been turned off crime by the other options. Those people might not be reformed by prison, but at least prison lightens the load on victims, for a while. And some do eventually swear that this is "the last time" and eventually manage to avoid going back. Not from being rehabbed, but they just get sick of going in and out of prison. 

 

I'm sure they know perfectly well that they are a criminal. When you break into someone's house, and steal their cherished property, it's fairly self-evident that you're a criminal. Try explaining to victims that you shouldn't label the person who trashed their home, and left them feeling unsafe and violated, as a criminal. The victims have rights, and one of those rights should be that the criminal pays a price for what they put the victims through. 

I can't believe this. You're demanding studies for the bleedin obvious now? I can't imagine any reputable organisation would risk the embarrassment of taking part. Or spending money on it. 

It's exactly this sort of specious diatribe/noise that Stalin, Hitler, Trump et al, rely on to drown out reasonable discourse and promote ever harder conditions for 'them', because they bloody deserve it, obviously.

There's a reason it's an ultra consevative way of thinking, they have what they think they want*; their limited 'free will' has been channeled into believing there's only two choices, us or them; it's only then that the answer is obvious.

Imagine the benefits of everyone understanding (more or less) that...

* Their not free to think they know what they want. 

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Perhaps you need to take a break and review? Back off the personal attacks? Answer clarifying questions so a reasonable conversation can happen?

 

I would be happy to clarify my OP or subsequent posts, but what I've been asked to do, in this case, is explain something we don't yet fully understand 'a definition of free will'.

Besides, what personal attacks?

[geordief]

2 hours ago, Eise said:

And in the second place, determinism is a necessary condition of free will

Would the frequent observation that children and us all, perhaps) need boundaries to develop  be  an illustration or consequence  of that underlying condition?

Again the observation that we need to be open minded but not to the extent that our brains fall out?

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, geordief said:

Would the frequent observation that children and us all, perhaps) need boundaries to develop  be  an illustration or consequence  of that underlying condition?

We have to learn, somehow...