Soapbox: An evergreen to be finally put down - Free Will

[Terxpahseyton]

So, unless you've got somewhere a whole lot more interesting to take this approach, it seems to me that defining 'free will' as something only a god could possess is a philosophical dead end.

You say dead end, I say actual answer. I feel like you are hiding a bit behind my definitions. My definitions are really not that important from why I stand, though (yeah, then I shouldn't so much have bothered with them I suppose - my bad). They are not that important, because if our brain is in every inch of its existence beyond its own control in the end (which I hope to have finally made clear enough in my reponse to uppi), whatever definition you have of freedom, as long as this definition is sort of meaningful, the brain will not be free, not even a bit. And this IMO allows only one conclusion regarding the question of will: That it is a mere experience of something beyond our brains control like looking at some object. Which makes our will as free as we are free to see the sun when looking at the sun.
All the philosophizing about free will you speak of is then exposed as philosophizing about the nature of our experience of will. Which is - I agree - and interesting topic. But a topic where it is foolhardy to expect any actual answers on the question weather such a will was free.

You defined freedom as free, or at least partially independent of, from external influence. The laws of physics are not an external influence. The brain is influenced by external forces, but its behavior is dictated by internal forces. Internal forces are not a restriction on free will. They are a mechanism of will. So it is possible for a brain to be free.

I went into that in my response to uppi

This is a useful perspective, because it's the one we associate best with thought and will. You make a decision. That decision is not necessarily free: we can imagine being enslaved or coerced, or physically bound. In thought experiments, mind control is also a hypothetical limit on will. But it can be free when none of these limits apply or have much sway. This perspective justifies the definition of free will as "free from external influence" because it intuitively fits with our reasoning about what makes a free decision here; enslavement, coercion, bonds, and mind control are all external influences.

You now speak of subjectively experienced external influences. I speak of what actually shapes who we are. Also, as I already stated elsewhere, I now prefer to speak of influences beyond the control of what we are rather than external influences. Much more precise and useful. You can learn more in my other responses.

As to how much it matters: That the bbjective constraints of what we make us (according to me) unfree is IMO of no direct relevance. It doesn't dissolve responsibility as something of importance ore legitimacy, it merely may provide a better understand of why responsibility as an idea is of importance and legitimacy. Not because it actually exists, but because it serves to regulate social relations in beneficial ways. It does so by becoming a factor of the equation which controls what we are.

We use our unfree brains to simulate a situation in which we are in fact free(imagination). We make a decision in that virtual world, then transpose it back into the unfree world and try to make it happen.

"We" is an imagination in itself though. We are imaginations who imagine things. This kind of double-floor is what makes this all so hard to grasp I suppose. But only this realization will reveal the true nature of things IMO.

But they discovered the Uncertainty Principle made that impossible, so free will (tightly constained) still remains.

Nope, freedom is about control.* Pure chance means nothing of the sort (as already stated in my response to uppi).
*That should have definitively been part of the OP. The OP is kind if messed up, truly sorry about that, but hope to have corrected by now where it went wrong.

 

[Souron]

@Sill
3 Points:

1)It is true that the brain is ultimately dictated by external forces, but that does not generally diminish it's freedom. Our choices are a product of our experiences and genes, a fact which does not make our choices any less free. Quite the opposite, they make our choices uniquely ours.

2)Factors out of your control do include to a large degree control over who you are. It is hard to make yourself care more, or be less jealous, or will yourself to believe something. But that does not make our choices less our own. Being a compassionate person does not make you less free when your compassion drives you to help your neighbor, even though you never chose to have empathy. Being an empathic person, does not diminish the nice things you do. So not all factors out of your control limit free will. Only eternal ones do.

3) The language of freedom and responsibility are one and the same. In establishing responsibility, which determines guilt and praise-worth, there are effectively 3 conditions: your body has to do the act (obviously), you have to intend to do the act, and you must be in control of your own actions. Any of the three remove or diminish responsibility. Yet this is the same as asking whether an act was done by choice. If you chose to do something, and it happens, you are responsible for it. When you have no choice in the matter, you're not responsible, even if your body was involved. What do you choose to do, you are responsible for. If you define freedom in a way that isn't related to responsibility, you're not talking about freedom as the word is usually used and thought of. While this may allow you to say you don't have free will for that narrow definition of freedom, such a claim is vacuous, because it doesn't relate to other things we associate with freedom.