Summations Only

Well then we are almost in agreement. But the way in which the man-in-the-street use of the term "free will" differs from your own is indisputably related to the role of determinism. I'll quote from my "Revisionist" link (which you claim to be in agreement with) once again: LinkSo do you accept that the man-in-the-street concept of "free will" is essentially incompatibilist and libertarian?For the record - I accept (your well argued) position that a compatibilist definition of free will ought (on the basis of consistency and coherence) to be taken.Where we seem to disagree is on the "diagnosis" rather than the "prescription". Well if your use of the term "free will" as compared to that of the man-in-the-street requires qualification it can't be the same can it?You are the one that stipulated that a man-in-the street use of terminology was necessary. If the questions now is simply "How different is your definition of 'free will from that of the man in the street?" then you have already failed your own self-imposed definitional benchmark. Which is why a 'yes or 'no' response is just as futile as a 'yes' or 'no' response to the question "Is navy blue more like black or white?". The answer - Strictly speaking - is "Black". But the honest answer is - "Neither. Because navy blue is neither black nor white". But why would any honest answer involve such silly black or white distinctions?

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The man-in-the-street notion of free will is confused and inconsistent. But that doesn't mean it can simply be altered or ignored does it? Dr A's position is well worthy of great merit. It is the coherent and consistent approach to free will that philosophy demands.But that is exactly why it isn't the same as that of the man in the street!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The man-in-the-street use of the term "free will" is intuitive, subjective, inconsistent, dualistic and ultimately philosophically incoherent.And that is exactly why Dr A's use of the term is NOT the same as that of the man-in-the-street!!!!!!!!!!Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It's not about being "completely unconstrained". It's about being unconstrained in the sense of having more freedom than a computer obeying completely deterministic programming.It's about the idea that I can decide to get up and hurl a cup through the window not because any prior causal chain (beyond myself and the cup being physically located for such an event to occur) dictated it - But simply because I decided to do that for no causal reason at all beyond my will being free enough to initiate that action irrespective of any other prior events.Determinism denies this subjective view of my actions.

Yes. But look at the "myself" and "I" in there. If the "man in the street" regards himself as being a caused being (a determined being), then he should agree that his decisions are both effect and cause, and therefore he's not really claiming that there's "no causal reason" for his choices. I agree that this MITS that we're discussing may be confused, but I also think that most people don't perceive themselves as being uncaused beings.In this way, a compatibilist view of what free will means may not only be a sensible solution, the MITS may already be largely there, if unwittingly so.One reason I say this is that if you ask people for causal reasons behind choices that they've made, they don't seem to consider it a strange question.Try asking your fellow cricket lovers why they've chosen to watch a certain test match on T.V., and ask them to analyse the choice beyond the level of "I like cricket". They might well readily accept that growing up in one of the world's cricketing cultures is part of the cause. Then some specific influences in their own childhood might add to the causal picture. But will they find it strange if you suggest such things? Will they perceive themselves as having uncaused cricket loving souls? I don't think so.So, if they're perceiving themselves as having freely chosen to watch the cricket, and they accept that there are causes of their cricket-loving selves, then aren't they natural compatabilists?Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

But if you ask them if their decision has single outcome which was entirely dictated by chain of causal events which precede their very existence - What would they say then?

I suspect that that's where we'd see the confusion. Still, "chain of events" might itself be confusing. How about "complex interaction of many causal factors"?Still, weren't you describing a view of free will which claimed "no prior causal reason" for a decision?Maybe we should try asking people if they regard themselves as uncaused beings. If most don't, then they must accept that "I made a choice" means "the causes of me made a choice". Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

Not really.Just stop and think about your own subjective view of causality for a moment. What are you going to type in response to this post? If I told you that what you are about to type is not only the product of woolly and vaguely indeterminate factors such as cultural influences and personal experiences but actually wholly, completely and specifically dictated by a chain of causal events which originated prior to your existence and over which you have no control - Would you assert that you have "free will"....If you would claim that you have "free will" in such a scenario would the man-in-the street agree with you given the same scenario?The research evidence suggests not...............As does my, presumably prevalent, subjective experience of decision making.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Only in the compatibilists' understanding of the phrase. The research evidence certainly suggests people are confused. For example, I read of one experiment in which the participants were described a futuristic scenario in which a supercomputer could predict all future human behaviour down to the last detail with 100% accuracy. That describes a deterministic world. The computer predicted that an individual would rob a bank. He did. 76% of the participants held the view that the robber in the scenario had freely chosen to rob the bank.Now, that might be viewed as people instinctively sticking to a libertarian view even when, in the deterministic scenario described, that's impossible. But in fact it could be better explained by instinctive compatibilism. The 76% have described the robber as having freely chosen to do something completely predetermined. So why aren't they "the man on the street"?

Sure, the m-i-t-s probably thinks that he has free will as a consequence of him being an invisible homunculus having the property of having free will. He also probably thinks that tigers exist because God made them by magic. At the risk of sounding elitist, that's because he's an idiot.But are his beliefs definitional of tigers or free will? I say that they're not. But that's apparently the only thing we're arguing about. The question is, given my opinions, should I say: "We have free will" or should I say "We do not have free will", if I'm going to say one or the other. It is perfectly true that I would not stop there, and that I would explain my views at great length with slides and diagrams. It is therefore true that the question is purely hypothetical, and, as you suggest, completely futile. But it is what we're arguing about. If I have to give a yes-or-no answer to the question "do we have free will?" what should I say? And I think that the least misleading statement of my opinions is "yes".

Also, he's ugly.

A revisionist would first have to know what free will is before he tries to revise it I think.None of us have absolute free will. There are parameters. Have you guys hashed out the parameters yet?

Hi, Straggler. Intuition tells me that the man-on-the-street's ideas are going to be based more on practical application than on formal definition. From this, I conclude that an accurate representation of his position may actually require me to contradict the formal definition he claims to accept.If this is the case, altering or ignoring the formal definition seems warranted to me.

Can someone remind me why we care what the man in the street's definition of free will is? We normally expect a bit more rigour than that.When and why did we get so limp?

Hi Dr Adequate, My point with bringing up the issue of worldview and past education, experience etc, is that in essence many things have already been (pre)decided:I've seen many women that I would on some level like to seduce or encourage to participate in a mutual sexual experience, but I have never considered raping anyone: I've already made that decision regardless of who is a theoretical target.Likewise I've also previously decided to consider nuns in a non-sexual context, so I don't see suddenly deciding to consider a nun in a sexual context as a viable decision to consider.Pre-decisions would not necessarily mean predestination nor lack of free will. The problem is personal history muddies when the decision is made in many cases. Consider a simple situation: I am lost downtown, I have some idea how I got to where I am, but I don't really know where that is, or how to get to my destination; I have a "feeling" that I should be going in a generally north-westerly direction, but there is a choice of two roads -- A going west and B going north. I don't really prefer one over the other, but want a little of both. Either stands a chance of getting me closer to my destination, but I don't know which one will be better in terms of the end result.Do I have free will to choose A?
Do I have free will to choose B?(so I am now the "man in the street" ... ) But if I decide to flip a coin to choose between A and B, is that choice (to flip a coin and abide by the result) not made by free will? Certainly it would not be predetermined, yes?If I knew the city, knew where I was and how to get where I wanted to go, then this part of my worldview would determine what choice I would make. It would in effect be pre-decided rather than predetermined.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : subtitleEdited by Zen Deist, : clrty

Hi, Tangle. I believe Dr Adequate cited advantages to the educating of said man-in-the-street as the primary purpose.