1) Something exists if it forms part of our best explanations of reality
2) Our best explanations of many daily human actions invoke free will. If you try to replace such explanations with others that don't invoke free will, they become worse explanations of reality
3) Therefore, free will exists
Similarly, our best physics theories are deterministic. So the world is deterministic, and free will exists.
The urge to "reduce" things to there smallest constituent parts is a mistake. Abstractions exist and are real.
"The causation always moves bottom-up, never top-down. In order for the macro-level mental cause, such as the intention-in-action, to even happen the micro-level has to initiate the cause. It is not merely the case that the mind needs to have a brain to exist; in order for any mental cause to happen, a neuronal cause must cause and realize that mental cause. The bottom line then, is that the mental (the macro-level phenomena) is always an effect of the neurons (the micro-level), but cannot itself cause the neurons to do something."
Consider this sequence of events as an analogy. The movement of my cue stick causes the cue ball to strike the eight-ball, which causes it to land in the corner pocket. The cue ball has no causal efficacy to make the eight-ball land in the pocket without the prior action of my cue stick striking it, causing it to hit the eight ball into the corner pocket. Nonetheless, the moving cue ball *does* cause the eight ball to go into the corner pocket, even if it cannot make the eight ball go into the corner pocket all by itself. It requires a prior causal event but is still a legitimate cause of the eight ball entering the corner pocket. This is the nature of causal chains.
Just because a conscious intention of the mind always requires a prior neuronal event, this does not disqualify it as a cause of behavior. To insist that conscious intentions of the mind be able to cause behaviors without prior neuronal events sounds like a demand for a kind of free will that does not make sense to me, where a mental intention comes into existence out of nowhere, free of prior neuronal causes. It might *seem* like this is what happens with mental intentions, but I think that the reality is that we cannot be aware of the neuronal events that generate conscious mental intentions.
Am I the only one who doesn't perceive himself to really have free will, at least not in the philosophical sense?
I am an individual with a certain personality, certain experiences and in a certain situation. I make choices based on these factors (maybe plus some amount of randomness, but it's actually hard to tell in practice!), similar to how an AI with a specific design and a specific training set will give the same output for the same test image (plus some amount of randomness, if programmed that way).
Yes, I perceive myself making choices, so I guess you can argue for some version of compatibilism. But I have absolutely no reason to believe that a copy of me with exactly the same set of personality/experiences/situation wouldn't make mostly identical choices (again, I'm willing to grant some amount of stochasticity). I don't really get where this idea comes from that the will is free, even if granting that the will may exist.
If make choices you have free will. Of course you are not making choices in a vacuum with infinite possibilities.
Think about that like a videogame. Your character was made to win complete some goals, but have options on the how, and even sometimes you can just walk around trolling NPCs. You clearly have a range of choices.
Maybe the term "free" is kind of misleading nowadays, so if you want to named compatibilism, you're free to do that; i just see compatibilism as blatant free will with the extra steps that everyone have their own contexts and realities.
1) Something exists if it forms part of our best explanations of reality
2) Our best explanations of many daily human actions invoke free will. If you try to replace such explanations with others that don't invoke free will, they become worse explanations of reality
3) Therefore, free will exists
Similarly, our best physics theories are deterministic. So the world is deterministic, and free will exists.
The urge to "reduce" things to there smallest constituent parts is a mistake. Abstractions exist and are real.
1) Something exists if it forms part of our best explanations of reality
Did caloric really exist when it was our best explanation of the phenomenon of heat?
"The causation always moves bottom-up, never top-down. In order for the macro-level mental cause, such as the intention-in-action, to even happen the micro-level has to initiate the cause. It is not merely the case that the mind needs to have a brain to exist; in order for any mental cause to happen, a neuronal cause must cause and realize that mental cause. The bottom line then, is that the mental (the macro-level phenomena) is always an effect of the neurons (the micro-level), but cannot itself cause the neurons to do something."
Consider this sequence of events as an analogy. The movement of my cue stick causes the cue ball to strike the eight-ball, which causes it to land in the corner pocket. The cue ball has no causal efficacy to make the eight-ball land in the pocket without the prior action of my cue stick striking it, causing it to hit the eight ball into the corner pocket. Nonetheless, the moving cue ball *does* cause the eight ball to go into the corner pocket, even if it cannot make the eight ball go into the corner pocket all by itself. It requires a prior causal event but is still a legitimate cause of the eight ball entering the corner pocket. This is the nature of causal chains.
Just because a conscious intention of the mind always requires a prior neuronal event, this does not disqualify it as a cause of behavior. To insist that conscious intentions of the mind be able to cause behaviors without prior neuronal events sounds like a demand for a kind of free will that does not make sense to me, where a mental intention comes into existence out of nowhere, free of prior neuronal causes. It might *seem* like this is what happens with mental intentions, but I think that the reality is that we cannot be aware of the neuronal events that generate conscious mental intentions.
Am I the only one who doesn't perceive himself to really have free will, at least not in the philosophical sense?
I am an individual with a certain personality, certain experiences and in a certain situation. I make choices based on these factors (maybe plus some amount of randomness, but it's actually hard to tell in practice!), similar to how an AI with a specific design and a specific training set will give the same output for the same test image (plus some amount of randomness, if programmed that way).
Yes, I perceive myself making choices, so I guess you can argue for some version of compatibilism. But I have absolutely no reason to believe that a copy of me with exactly the same set of personality/experiences/situation wouldn't make mostly identical choices (again, I'm willing to grant some amount of stochasticity). I don't really get where this idea comes from that the will is free, even if granting that the will may exist.
If make choices you have free will. Of course you are not making choices in a vacuum with infinite possibilities.
Think about that like a videogame. Your character was made to win complete some goals, but have options on the how, and even sometimes you can just walk around trolling NPCs. You clearly have a range of choices.
Maybe the term "free" is kind of misleading nowadays, so if you want to named compatibilism, you're free to do that; i just see compatibilism as blatant free will with the extra steps that everyone have their own contexts and realities.