Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EleanorStroustrup t1_j8hlwy5 wrote

Reply to comment by marginalboy in “The principle of protecting our own thinking from eavesdroppers is fundamental to autonomy.” – Daniel Dennett debates the sort of free will it’s worth wanting with neuroscientists Patrick Haggard and philosopher Helen Steward by IAI_Admin

> What’s the difference between “actually making the choice” and what’s being described: evaluating the options and selecting the one that best fits your criteria?

That’s not what’s being described. What’s being described is having the perception that “you” (whatever that means, since it’s all just particles) are an agent who is evaluating options and selection the one that best fits “your” criteria. Your perception of reality is not reality.

> It sounds like you’re arguing that “free will” is something that’s only discernible externally, regardless of the perception of the agent making the choice.

I’m arguing that the concept of free will does not make sense, and cannot exist. I suppose one could prove a being has free will by observing particles in its nervous system that don’t obey physical laws while it makes choices, but if we’re entertaining that idea then we have a lot of other philosophical and scientific problems.

0

marginalboy t1_j8hwjzd wrote

Ah, then it seems the disagreement is more fundamental, indeed. If you’re arguing from a context in which “you” isn’t defined, then the notion of “will” — free or otherwise — is irrelevant.

But even then, I’m not sure “particles not obeying physical laws” is the most sensible benchmark. Of course they obey physical laws; the distinction is the series of reactions that could occur but don’t.

For example, I’m imagining expanding the previous paragraph. I’ve composed several sentences in my head that would illuminate the point further, but I’m choosing not to do so. I think that may be an example of what we’re calling “free will” here: the ability to chart multiple courses of viable action and selecting one. Your argument seems to be that the chemical composition of my brain prevents me from doing anything but imagining those sentences, but my perception is that I could go on at length if I chose to do so (a tendency many on Reddit would testify to) ;-)

2

EleanorStroustrup t1_j8lsykw wrote

> If you’re arguing from a context in which “you” isn’t defined, then the notion of “will” — free or otherwise — is irrelevant.

If someone is arguing that we do have free will, surely “there is no will” is a valid way to counter.

> Of course they obey physical laws; the distinction is the series of reactions that could occur but don’t.

What do you mean “could have occurred”? If reality proceeds according to physical laws, only the things that did happen could have happened. If other things could have happened, they would have happened instead.

You could have acted differently to the way you did yesterday, sure. And the moon could be made of cheese.

> the ability to chart multiple courses of viable action and selecting one

But you’re not. You just have the perception that you are.

> Your argument seems to be that the chemical composition of my brain prevents me from doing anything but imagining those sentences,

Yes. The current composition as a result of all the interactions your constituent particles have had during your life.

> but my perception is that I could go on at length if I chose to do so

Our perception is not relevant to the issue.

1