What is freedom?

[Fifty]

So I figure most of you are probably hard determinists (its so hella scientific and all), but still I wonder if we might have an interesting discussion about free will.

So, I wonder, what is it that you are denying when you say we don't have free will? In other words, what is free will? In still other words, for some action committed by some agent, what would be required for us to properly classify that action as "free", in the free will sense?

This isn't just "semantics" (scare quotes because, as with "liberal" and "communism" and "conservative", the word "semantics" is often just used as a vague term of abuse with little understanding of what the bad sense of semantics actually is). Rather, it seems pretty clear that in order to have a useful debate about whether or not something exists, it helps first to have some understanding of what that thing is which we are having a debate about!

DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE FREE WILL BELONGS ELSEWHERE.

 

[Perfection]

I'll take a stab:

The ability to do something, anything more is context dependent.

 

[Fifty]

The ability to do something, anything more is context dependent.

I'm worried that that definition might be mere synonymy (i.e. it might be true, but unhelpful). So, what do you mean by ability???

 

[Mise]

I don't blame a dog for crapping on the floor, but I do blame (most) humans for crapping on the floor (ty perf's avvy for this thought). If I can hold someone accountable for their actions, then they have free will. Afterall, it would be unreasonable of me to hold someone accountable for their actions if their actions were beyond their control, right?

 

[MobBoss]

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

 

[Sidhe]

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

Good job it doesn't exist then.

Although you're right you do have the freedom to opt out- of life.

I don't blame a dog for crapping on the floor, but I do blame (most) humans for crapping on the floor (ty perf's avvy for this thought). If I can hold someone accountable for their actions, then they have free will. Afterall, it would be unreasonable of me to hold someone accountable for their actions if their actions were beyond their control, right?

Freewill's a tricky subject, I'm not sure if we have it or not, although I hope we do. Under God then supposedly, but I'm not sure I buy that.

 

[scy12]

Intelligence to understand the consequences of your actions both positive and negative.
Or maybe Freedom is the lack of that intelligence only then you are actions may not be free .

 

[MobBoss]

Good job it doesn't exist then.

Apparently, my comment...and its origin....were completely lost on you.

You might want to try googling it.

Of course freedom exists. But there are varying stages/levels of it.

 

[Fifty]

If I can hold someone accountable for their actions, then they have free will.

This sort of definition seems far too non-neutral. That is, it (sorta) begs the question against the hard determinist. After all, we do hold people accountable for their actions all the time! So if that's really what free will means, then the debate is over from the get-go!

Plus, it seems like we do all sorts of things that are free and yet we can't be held accountable for them because they are actions that don't have any moral relevance.

In short, your definition sucks!!!

Come on where are all the friggen determinists!!??!? Everyone here is so confident about their solution to the problem of free will, yet we can't even get a good definition of what we are talking about out!?

 

[Sidhe]

Apparently, my comment...and its origin....were completely lost on you.

You might want to try googling it.

Of course freedom exists. But there are varying stages/levels of it.

Apparently? Or you could just explain it?

 

[Fifty]

Apparently? Or you could just explain it?

It's a lyric from a famous song.

 

[Sidhe]

It's a lyric from a famous song.

Ahhhhhhhhh ok.

 

[ArneHD]

But you do hold the dog accountable; you punish it, right? The same applies to humans, the punishment is just different.

Edit: Ops, didn't realise that the thread had advanced this far.

 

[Sidhe]

This sort of definition seems far too non-neutral. That is, it (sorta) begs the question against the hard determinist. After all, we do hold people accountable for their actions all the time! So if that's really what free will means, then the debate is over from the get-go!

Plus, it seems like we do all sorts of things that are free and yet we can't be held accountable for them because they are actions that don't have any moral relevance.

In short, your definition sucks!!!

Come on where are all the friggen determinists!!??!? Everyone here is so confident about their solution to the problem of free will, yet we can't even get a good definition of what we are talking about out!?

My solution to both the compatibility issue and the incompatibility issue is scientific, or wrong by default. Thus it is not actually going to get much attention from philosophers.

Hard determinism is not something any but the most pessimistic entertain anyway, me included outside of physics. Too depressing.

 

[Fifty]

My solution to both the compatibility issue and the incompatibility issue is scientific, or wrong by default. Thus it is not actually going to get much attention from philosophers.

huh? Is this just standard woefully ignorant philosopher-bashing, or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Because pretty much the #1 condition of adequacy on any philosophical account of free will is that it is consistent with what all the relevant sciences (physics, psychology, etc.) tell us.

Please don't post your "solution" though, as that isn't the purpose of this thread. I am just asking what freedom is, which is a question worth resolving before we start seriously considering whether we have it!

 

[Sidhe]

huh? Is this just standard woefully ignorant philosopher-bashing, or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Because pretty much the #1 condition of adequacy on any philosophical account of free will is that it is consistent with what all the relevant sciences (physics, psychology, etc.) tell us.

Please don't post your "solution" though, as that isn't the purpose of this thread. I am just asking what freedom is, which is a question worth resolving before we start seriously considering whether we have it!

Yes you are.

and

Ok I wont then. Sorted.

 

[scy12]

huh? Is this just standard woefully ignorant philosopher-bashing, or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Because pretty much the #1 condition of adequacy on any philosophical account of free will is that it is consistent with what all the relevant sciences (physics, psychology, etc.) tell us.

Please don't post your "solution" though, as that isn't the purpose of this thread. I am just asking what freedom is, which is a question worth resolving before we start seriously considering whether we have it!

The first path we must cross when we examine something like freedom is to observe what may have freedom and what may not. Then we can see their differences and reach conclusions.

Assumption 1) Plants do not have freedom.

 

[Elrohir]

So I figure most of you are probably hard determinists (its so hella scientific and all), but still I wonder if we might have an interesting discussion about free will.

So, I wonder, what is it that you are denying when you say we don't have free will? In other words, what is free will? In still other words, for some action committed by some agent, what would be required for us to properly classify that action as "free", in the free will sense?

This isn't just "semantics" (scare quotes because, as with "liberal" and "communism" and "conservative", the word "semantics" is often just used as a vague term of abuse with little understanding of what the bad sense of semantics actually is). Rather, it seems pretty clear that in order to have a useful debate about whether or not something exists, it helps first to have some understanding of what that thing is which we are having a debate about!

DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE FREE WILL BELONGS ELSEWHERE.

When you are free, you have the capacity to choose between several different options. Freedom in the sense that you're using it - free will, actual choice, not political liberty or anything similar - is the state where you are able to make choices. The different choices don't have to be equally probable or worthwhile, but they all have to be possible, and the determining factor in which is chosen has to be the individual making the choice, not something else. And then we get into whether the choice must be informed for it to be a true choice, and whether there is ever such thing as a fully informed choice, and....

Agree? Disagree?

 

[nc-1701]

Strictly speaking I'de say Freedom is just Quantuam non-determinism

Though when speaking about free societys and such freedom just means whatever the speaker perverts it too mean, and typically just means "similar to America".

 

[Aegis]

To do as you wish, so long as it does not harm another.