Jump to content

Talk:Free will/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26

Physical determinism taxonomy

I am reviewing this edit concerning the removal of the physical determinism taxonomy [1]; https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frdeee_will&oldid=656086328 ("Reference clearly states no adherents to hard incompatiblism which is simply a logical position so state as such and remove diagram")

The inclusion of all logical positions does not invalidate the worth of a diagram. Moreover, diagrams help people understand concepts. Were there any other reasons why the taxonomy was removed?

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Including a position not held by anyone and not supported by a reference is hardly going to help anyone understand ----Snowded TALK 14:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this Snowded. Hard incompatibilism is discussed in the introduction and there is a section on free will#Hard incompatibilism. A position needn't be held by academics to be discussed in the literature. Including all logical positions is precisely what helps people understand a concept (not including logical positions is what makes things confusing for people). I understand that there are cases where the literature has confounded two concepts, which makes it difficult for an encyclopedia to explain them (express all logical positions); but this does not appear to be the case here.
Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Disagree - and you have to have a reference to include material. To put in something based on what you call logic is original research or synthesis ----Snowded TALK 05:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Read the references that were added to the taxonomy (note you first described it as a logical position in your original reversion). Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll take another look but they will have to be very convincing for me to agree - that diagram is misleading in its implications ----Snowded TALK 05:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I did a quick scan and I can't see that any of the sources summarise in a form that supports the table other than through synthesis - if I am missing something here please point me to it. I'll happily read through in more detail tomorrow but for the moment I need to get to work ----Snowded TALK 05:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
For correctness, I am currently considering changing the caption to; "A simplified taxonomy of philosophical positions regarding free will and determinism. Positions should be considered in the following order; 1. compatibilism,[1][2][3] 2. libertarianism,[4][5] 3. hard incompatibilism,[1] and 4. hard determinism[1]."
NB This translates to; 1. "If determinism is true and free will is possible, then Compatibilism", 2. "If determinism is false and free will is possible, then Libertarianism", 3. "If determinism is false and free will is impossible, then Hard Incompatibilism", (else) 4. "If determinism is true and free will is impossible, then Hard Determinism".
Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3][6] [4] [5]

  1. ^ a b c d McKenna, Michael (2009). "Compatibilism". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2009 ed.).
  2. ^ a b O'Connor, Timothy (Oct 29, 2010). Edward N. Zalta (ed.) (ed.). "Free Will". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition). Retrieved 2013-01-15. {{cite web}}: |editor= has generic name (help)
  3. ^ a b Hoefer, Carl (2008-04-01). "Causal Determinism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2008-11-01.
  4. ^ a b Vihvelin, Kadri (2011). "Arguments for Incompatibilism". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 ed.).
  5. ^ a b Randolph, Clarke (2008). "Incompatibilist (Nondeterministic) Theories of Free Will". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 ed.).
  6. ^ Vedral, Vlatko (2006-11-18). "Is the Universe Deterministic?". New Scientist. 192 (2578). Physics is simply unable to resolve the question of free will, although, if anything, it probably leans towards determinism.
Have you got a source which directly supports that taxonomy? As far as I can see it is a synthesis/interpretation of the sources you give and it is misleading as such in terms of the weight it gives to approaches aside from the general synthesis issue. FAD insertion in a modified form is not agreed until we have a consensus here ----Snowded TALK 06:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I presume that this diagram was added to Wikipedia in the interests of providing the readers with a better understanding of the concepts (I doubt the author who first developed it was engaging in synthesis). I am interested to know people's opinion on the description I have recommended be added to the caption. I believe it negates any claims of being "misleading in its implications". Perhaps people can find a reference to contradict it? Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Two by twos tend to over simplify and also to give equal status to each quadrant. It is synthesis but if enough editors agree it might be allowed. But I don't take the argument that it has to be disproved. A three way diagram might be more interesting but again I am not sure why this is needed It also emphases a dichotomy between the physical and the mental which directly contradicts post-cartesian models of consciousness which give radical new solutions to the free will problem. So the representation perpetuates a distinction that in turn leads to a problem. ----Snowded TALK 16:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your reasoning Snowded.
Oversimplification: I think we should give the readers the benefit of the doubt in desiring clarification of the text rather than simple pictorial explanations of the problem. There may however be other ways to visualise the material, and this has been discussed in the past.
Equal status: I don't think we should assume that readers infer equal status from 2x2 matrices. Despite this, equal status is difficult to quantify in this context. I think we should be emphasising the philosophical positions discussed by contemporary philosophers rather than those held by contemporary philosophers - in which case the presentation of all logical positions is preferred. Moreover, their status in academia is dependent on the status of contemporary physics (it is not static).
Synthesis: The diagram is not a synthesis as defined by Wikipedia:SYNTH
Editing: I don't think this is a question of allowing rather than preferencing. I think we should be finding the best possible material for this article.
Criticism: I am not arguing that the diagram has to be disproved. I am suggesting that if it can't be contradicted, then it probably is a good diagram.
Three way diagram: I think it is important to ask, which position would be culled and on what basis? "In recent times, hard determinism has fallen out of fashion, largely because our best sciences suggest that determinism is probably false. But the spirit of the hard determinist position is sustained by hard incompatibilists, who hold that there is no free will if determinism is true, but also, that there is no free will if determinism is false".[1] Before 2010, the diagram was 3 way. Hard incompatibilism was added to the diagram. One could even argue that hard incompatibilism is underemphasised in the diagram (the diagram is giving respect to historical positions over their contemporary superordinate classification).
Post-cartesian models of consciousness: Can you please explain what you mean here? I am not sure how the taxonomy emphasises a dichotomy between the physical and the mental. All non-cartesian formulations of metaphysical libertarianism are covered by the diagram.
My recommendations: It is possible that the diagram belongs in section "In Western Philosophy" instead of the lead. However, I think it is the most appropriate diagram we have for the lead at present. This is a philosophical (not a theological) article, and we should be catering for readers interested in philosophy. I am interested to know what Pfhorrest thinks on these issues (including the caption update); he also has a background in organising this content.
Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Well per the above I think it can be proved to be incomplete, the possible/impossible distinction and the emphasis on physical in one dimension would require us too have a massive circle in the middle to handle novelty receptive v autonomic processing for example. It's a model stuck in a specific tradition in a specific past. At the most a historical note in Western Philosophy not the lede. Always interested in Pfhorrest thoughts. But, it is a crude and simplistic taxonomy that does not cover all the options ....----Snowded TALK 05:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Note I can't comprehend the argument here Snowded - it appears to be critiquing the literature. You are happy with a textual description of the free will classification scheme discussed in the philosophical literature, but not a visualisation of it? Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Well as far as I can see the literature does not cover one of the options in the taxonomy. Also as I said it is stuck in the past, hence my reference above to post-Cartesian concepts of consciousness which change the free will debate. Any diagram created by editors is a form of critique or synthesises material by the way. The diagram you give below is better than the two by two but still suffers from the points raised. We need other comments really to progress this ----Snowded TALK 04:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have created an alternative visualisation of the material. FreeWillTaxonomy4.svg is based on DeterminismXFreeWill.svg and FreeWillTaxonomy2.svg. Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the new diagram is suitable for the western philosophy section (although it is too complicated for the introduction):
[as discussed] it a) covers all logical positions on the topic, b) using the primary method of classification discussed in philosophical literature (compatibilism/incompatibilism).
For reference (although irrelevant), the primary classification scheme for free will (compatibilism/incompatibilism) maps to lay intuitions regarding free will.
[as discussed] Diagrams are not Synthesis as defined by wikipedia (assuming the positions discussed are sourced together).
[as discussed] The positions illustrated are sourced in an academic encyclopedia[1], see; "Compatibilism's Competitors". I have quoted from this paragraph above.
[as discussed] The positions illustrated are already discussed in the introduction (and have been for a long time).
The new diagram addresses the ambiguity present in the simpler layout [discussed].
The historical classification scheme is independent of cartesian conceptions of consciousness/philosophy of mind (it only concerns physical determinism).
[as discussed] The criteria for encyclopedic material is its coverage of views discussed in the literature (not its coverage of views held by academics).
It is not clear that the classification scheme discussed in the philosophical literature is outdated ('stuck in the past'); physical determinism is not an issue that has been definitively resolved at present (although the evidence suggests that we live in an indeterministic universe).
If there are any other points raised that the new diagram suffers from please repeat them; thanks.
Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Placing a diagram such as this in a section not the lede makes sense, but if so the title needs to indicate its relevance to a series of debates even within the western tradition. Maybe "A perspective on debates" or similar would do it ----Snowded TALK 08:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Snowded. For now I have placed the diagram deep within the incompatibilism section (indicating its relevance to the historic debate). Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Galen Strawson's table

I feel that this table is not fully explained and is linguistically awkward in its current set up. However, I feel that to actually go through the full table would not be a worthwhile effort for the reader. I propose that it be deleted since it does not add anything meaningful to the topic of free will in its current form and would only add a minor contribution and be tedious for the reader if it were fully explained. Is there any objection to this? Pulliam.thomas (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Free will or free evaluation of motives ?

Hi, this article is very interesting, but I think in principle wrongly explained. Take for instance the first sentence: Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action. - In practical life this never happens as explained in this example: Assume there is a philosopher who after having lunch has the possibility to choose between two desserts: either one chewing gum or else one apple. Now, this philosopher will start to think about the advantages (chewing gum tastes better, apple is more healthy) and disadvantages (chewing gum is not healthy, the apple tastes a little sour) and he will think about satisfying his cravings and caring for a good health. Now, let's assume that the philosopher decides for the apple because he needs a good health for being able to be a good philosopher, which is very important for him. Then, after having eaten the apple, he asks himself: Did I make a free choice? Yes, I did, because I freely evaluated my motives and intentions, but then afterwards my only will was to take the apple. It does not make sense to me to be able to choose what I don't want, because what I want is determined by motives that I freely reflect over. Hence, my will is not free because I want what I want (and not what I don't want), but what is free instead is how my will develops and finds its motives. Or at least this is the question: If I can freely evaluate motives then I'm really free, but if the motives come up in deterministic manner, if I cannot freely think, my freedom is an illusion. Therefore, this entire article is not about the question of free will, but about the question of free thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.127.253 (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting comment! You really got me thinking. After careful thought, I have to say I disagree. In your example, the philosopher had the free will to choose between two desserts of his/ her liking. Had he not wanted the gum at all he could have decided on a piece of chocolate instead. The negative connotation added to the idea of having to pick the gum was a theoretical assumption on your part. The philosopher had the ability of free thinking to narrow down all desserts to two he would decide on. He/ she had the free will to choose the apple. I quite like your breakdown of it though, very thought inducing. 209.129.115.53 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

On my last edit

Hello, I am Antonio9099, I created this account because I forgot my last password. I the edit was made after reading this part here http://www.iep.utm.edu/james-o/ : "(1) the reasonable sort, whereby we accede to rational arguments; (2) the sort that is triggered by external circumstances, such as overhearing a rumor; (3) the sort that is prompted by our submission to something within ourselves, such as a habit formed by past actions; (4) the sort that results from a sudden change of mood such as might be caused by a feeling of grief; and (5) the rare sort that is a consequence of our own voluntary choice, which will be identified as the “will to believe.” Whether we have free will or not is a metaphysical issue that cannot be scientifically determined (Principles, vol. 2, pp. 486-488, 528, 531-534, 572-573; Psychology, pp. 415, 419-420, 428-434, 456-457)." I thought the edit would work. I'm very sorry if I did wrong. Would my edit be able to be put back? And if not, could someone explain why? Thank you and sorry for not giving a reason earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio9100 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You deleted sourced content and added unsourced content. What part of the article that you linked to did you read? Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
2c. Emotion and will. Again, very sorry about my mistake. So, would it be able to come back or not really? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio9100 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure but it doesnt fit in that section, it would need to be put in a different section Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Where would you advise for it to be put? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio9100 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I put the edit where I thought it would fit. Please, if you still think it's in th ewrong section, add it where you think it fits. Thank you for your help and sorry if I caused any trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio9100 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Free will. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Free will. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free will. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting the Article in the Light of New Empirical Evidence

The evidence is not really new, but this article was not updated.

The following "joke" outlines scenarios relevant for the concept of "Free Will". In principle, voluntary acts require neuronal activity for intent (in average .8 sec). Reacts require much shorter neuronal activity (in average .2 sec). See Mental chronometry, Benjamin Libet and Bereitschaftspotential. The most of the references in these articles could be used and elaborated on. Also, everybody can test major points of this "joke" in a cafe, for example. The test is quite simple: Ask your friend to tell you which hand to lift...

Since Libet's findings started to trickle out -
there was a lot of nonsense about our free will...
What??? My free will is useless? I'll give it up!
Here, my friend, take it - and tell me what to do...
Now, how could I - give up something I did not have?!
Damir Ibrisimovic
22nd May 2011

Reacts are automatic and executed on external or internal cue (within .2 sec in average). This could be shortened to practical zero, as in starting the sprinter's race.

Every act requires .8 sec in average with .5 sec of neuronal activity, to override an instinctive react(.2 sec).

Also, René Descartes noticed a slight delay as people were overriding their instinctive reactions with willed deliberate voluntary acts. This is exactly the same delay Benjamin Libet researched. This also calls for "readiness potential" to be renamed into neuronal activity required for intent.

I think that is enough to modify the article. I will invite other editors to help with the reviewing and editing.

Other articles (like Benjamin Libet) are also impacted and will probably need editing.


React and Act Example:

The Necker cube and Rubin vase can be perceived in more than one way.

The ambiguous graphics have one meaning that is visual react (.2 sec or less). Another meaning needs to be intended (.5 sec or more).

The proposed changes at Talk:Free Will and Free Will need a teamwork. As yet there is no response. If there is no response within 24 hours, the call for interested editors will be made at project pages.
I have invited editors from three major projects. As yet, there are no responses. After three days, I will start editing myself. Maybe then we will have interested editors...
Please add your thoughts below.

Guidance

Each change should be proposed, discussed and accepted at Talk:Free Will.

The changes to article Free Will should not be implemented while drafting is in progress.

When the proposed draft is completed the main article will be overwritten.

Weight of Evidence

The scientific evidence is peer reviewed and has priority over other types of "evidence".

Speculative "evidence" without a support of empirical evidence should be treated as speculation. For example, hard determinism is not supported by empirical evidence. And that weakens speculative evidence.

Let me just note that any changes to this article need to be consistent with WP:MEDRS. In particular that means that the article should not contain "original research", per WP:OR. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Welcome Looie496 and thank you for your comment. Maybe you could help me with drafting the article.
As for "original research", my "Joke" only combines several independent pieces of research: Mental chronometry, Benjamin Libet and Bereitschaftspotential.
Furthermore, my "joke" is so simple to test that everybody can confirm each detail of the "Joke".
Please, let me know what you think.
Enjoy the day, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I came here from the note at WT:NEURO, and I would like to continue on Looie's point about WP:NOR (and WP:V). I've read the talk page comments about the putative new evidence, and there is something that I cannot find: a citation to a source about this. Such a source would need to satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS if this page were to cite it, and we cannot add new material of this sort without citing a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Tryptofish,
The sources are temporarily only outlined at three mentioned articles and I will cite them later.
Meanwhile, would you help me with drafting?
Enjoy the day, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I realize that you are a relatively new editor here – and welcome to Wikipedia! – but that's not the way that things work here. I'm not going to support any drafting or revision that is unable to cite published reliable sources, as Wikipedia defines reliable sources. The relevant policies and guidelines are at WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS. It's very important that you understand all of them. I see at your user talk page that you already have an invitation to the "Teahouse". I strongly recommend that you go there, and some experienced editors there will be happy to help you understand those policies and guidelines, and how they apply to this content. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Dear Triptofish,
Please, let me know about what do you think "me being original". I do need to have a "clear picture". If I'm "original" then there is no point in continuing drafting...
Enjoy the day,Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course, it is nothing personal about you, just a matter of sourcing. If you can cite sourcing for the proposed draft material that complies with the policies and guidelines that I listed, then it will be appropriate to continue drafting new content. (You can see what I mean by looking at how the references are cited on this page.) But if you cannot, then I would indeed recommend not going any further with the drafting effort. And if what I am trying to say here is unclear, please feel free to ask at the Teahouse. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The Empirical Evidence

The empirical evidence supports two major categories - acts and reacts.

The evidence supporting reacts can be found in Benjamin Libet and BereitschaftspotentialBenjamin Libet and Bereitschaftspotential

The evidence supporting voluntary acts can be found in Benjamin Libet and Bereitschaftspotential.

The combined evidence offers unique insight on Free Will:

Reacts are executed within (.2 sec or less) - habitual reacts.

Acts veto reacts with intent (.5 sec or less).

Acts can be activated only if there is an alternative to habitual reacts. If there is no alternative — the other meaning can be willed (.8 sec or more). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damir Ibrisimovic (talk • contribs) 06:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please copy the applicable citations here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Benjamin Libet "Mind Time" - "The Temporal Factor In Consciousness" Harvard University Press; Cambridge Massachusetts; London, England 2004. Book presents consciousness and chronology of different neuronal events including "Readiness Potential". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damir Ibrisimovic (talk • contribs) 04:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Here is a link to selections from that book: [2]. It seems to me that this page already covers Libet's ideas about the readiness potential at Free will#Neurophilosophy, and there is already more detailed coverage of the topic at Neuroscience of free will, which gives Libet quite a lot of prominence, as well as covering how other subsequent authorities have disagreed with Libet. Consequently, I'm not clear on what more we could add to this page, without giving undue weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can see you are doing original research based on a limited selection of primary sources. Limited even in the context of those of us who say that Free Will is real, the evidence base is more sophisticated than that and growing as a body of knowledge. However it needs to get into third party sources to include in Wikipedia ----Snowded TALK 05:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Dear Snowded,
You are welcome to be the "third party. (I cannot turn myself into a third party.
Enjoy the day, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
That's not what "third party" means in this context. There are three kinds of sources: a primary orfirst-party source is itself original research, written by the people putting forth the claims of that research. A secondary or second-party source is some kind of commentary on that first-party source, like say a news report about the fact that the research happened, or a journal's review of the research's quality. A third-party source is something like an encyclopedia, that compiles information from multiple sources and does not itself put forward any claims, or say anything about those claims itself, but rather reports on the kinds of things other people are saying about those claims.
Snowded is saying that you can't just take claims from a bunch of primary sources and have the encyclopedia here say things about them, because the encyclopedia is itself a third-party source that is supposed to sum up what other parties are saying about the original research, and that would be a second-party kind of claim to make, which is unbefitting a third-party encyclopedia. It would technically be acceptable but a lot more difficult and contentious to find a well-weighted selection of secondary sources commenting on the original research to which we can source the encyclopedia's own third-party claims. But it's much more straightforward to just find another (usually more specialized) reputable third-party source that says that people generally say whatever about whatever whoever is saying, and then repeat that here, cited to that other third party source. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to agree with Snowded and Pfhorrest here. Even if this 'empirical' evidence could be verified by other sources, I am still unsure how it would a) affect the whole article or b) change the way we view free will... even if I say that I personally don't believe in it anyway. Perhaps this does have potential to be referenced to under a subsection however. Finally, although I don't really understand the 'joke', it would not be considered WP:OR had this 'joke' been made up by Eisenstein and was referenceable - it might have a place in order to aid specific understanding, even if it still leaves me confused... Nevertheless, it seems silly just to let this 'new empirical evidence' just sit around when we could add it on a knowledge basis and allow readers to make of it what they will. Gestcom (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Gestcom

A Different Approach

I have started this approach with a different view -- a view where empirical evidence obliterates speculative "evidence".

I must admit that empirical evidence is much more important to me than speculative "evidence".

This is contrary to Wikipedia's "egalitarian" approach -- in which every evidence (speculative or empirical) is weighted equally.

I have, therefore, decided to abandon my further contributions.

If there is an editor interested in including my research results -- I'll be happy to help.

Enjoy the day, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Speculative "Evidence" -- vs -- Empirical Evidenca

The speculative "evidence" is based on guesses about what might be an imagined "empirical evidence". However, the imagined "evidence" is rarely supported by empirical evidence.

The empirical evidence is directly supported by hard data that is peer-reviewed by our peers.

These facts challenge directly the speculative evidence.

Without the challenge, there is no difference between "speculative" and empirical evidence. But ---sooner rather than later--- empirical evidence prevails and one or more speculative "evidence" has to be abandoned...

I'll take the role of Don Quixote and declare a "war" on windmills. If you know where the battlefield is, please let me know...

Enjoy the day, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Free will. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect picture

The picture "A simplified taxonomy of philosophical positions regarding free will and determinism" is incorrect.

Let ♦ denote operator of possibility (that is, ♦p means "it is possible that p"). Let D denote "the world is deterministic" and "FW" denote "some humans possess free will".

The question "If determinism is true, free will is possible?" in the top line in the picture states: "Does D imply ♦FW?", the true/false answer to which is the same as for the question "D=>♦FW?", where => is the implication symbol.

Now, D=>♦FW is false iff D is true and ♦FW is false, which is an obvious mischaracterization of incompatibilism.

The correct question in the top line of the said picture should be stated as "D=>~♦FW?" - where ~ is the negation symbol - or "Does D imply ~♦FW?". The latter may be informally written as "If determinism is true, free will is impossible?". (The question marks ? should be all removed as true/false is a logical value of the statement under the question mark and not an answer - the latter should be yes/no).

And then the arrows down from that question should be re-labelled from true to false (the left arrow) and from false to true (the right arrow).

Here is another error.

The question in the second line, "free will is possible?" may be formally expressed as "♦FW?". If the answer is "false" then ~♦FW is true. This makes the statement "~D=>~♦FW" true so the question in the third line, "if determinism is false, free will is impossible?" equivalent to "~D=>~♦FW?" cannot have "false" answer, contrary to what the picture suggests. Thus the said question cannot separate Hard Incompatibilism from Hard Determinism, contrary to what the picture shows.

Here is a suggestion regarding a table.

It would be much clearer if all the relevant perspective on determinism and free will were expressed as logical combinations of D and ♦FW. This information could be extracted from Galen Strawson's table, where 0 in row 1 means ~D, 1 in row 1 meand D, 0 in row 2 means ~♦FW and 1 in row 2 means ♦FW.

Galen Strawson's table[2]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
D&~♦FW ~D&♦FW D&♦FW ~D&~♦FW D ~D ~♦FW ♦FW true

Then one can conclude that D=>~♦FW, which is equivalent to ~(D&♦FW), as the complement of the column 3 in the above table, in particular, as the OR of columns 1, 2 and 4. Also, ~D=>♦FW is equivalent to ~(~D&~♦FW) and as such is the complement of column 4 in the above table, that is, the OR of columns 1, 2, and 3, etc.

M A Suchenek (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally I would just get rid of the table, the framing is dubious and I don't think it adds anything. -----Snowded TALK 05:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"Other views" section

I'm not seeing what the purpose of the "other views" section is, other than as a legacy of when we were having arguments here with people who didn't understand the topic and resisted categorizing things as (in)compatibilist at all. Every view on free will either does or does not say it requires non-determinism, so every view is either incompatibilist (those who do say so) or compatibilist (those who don't say so). Most of the "other views" seem to be obviously compatibilist, and I'm not seeing the need to have that section split off like that at all. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree - I suggest deletion, those were dark days and best behind us :-) -----Snowded TALK 06:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting deleting the whole section, just the header line dividing it from the Compatibilism section. I was about to go ahead and do that now, but upon actually reading the contents of the section more thoroughly to be sure that that's the right course of action, I saw that while some are clearly compatibilist and some are clearly incompatibilist, there were others that I couldn't so quickly decide what to do with them. And even the ones that are easily categorized seem like they should be properly integrated into the existing sections, and not just tacked onto them as things unto themselves. So, I don't think I'm going to do anything just yet myself. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
It needs some restructuring at least - we had so much added, so many discussions that a fresh look is really needed. -----Snowded TALK 06:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

One-sided coverage of research in section on Effects of the belief itself

Although it may have been an accurate summary of the state of research a decade ago (all the refs are 2010 or earlier), the last few paragraphs of Free will#Effects of the belief itself cite sources that paint a uniformly positive picture of the effects of belief in free will. There are two problems with this. First, a chunk of the references are to unverifiable unpublished data and unpublished manuscripts.[3][4][5] Second, there have been subsequent publications that reach different conclusions that are not covered.[6][7][8] Based on these more recent studies, it seems far from settled that believing in free will is associated with better moral behavior (but that's how the section reads at present).

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference stanfordcompatibilism was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Strawson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Alquist, J.L., and R.F. Baumeister. 2008. [Free will and conformity]. Unpublished raw data / manuscript in preparation, Florida State University.
  4. ^ Stillman, T.F. and Baumeister, R.F. (2008). Belief in free will supports guilt over personal misdeeds. Unpublished findings. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.
  5. ^ Alquist, J.L., M. Daly, T. Stillman, and R.F. Baumeister, (2009). [Belief in determinism decreases counterfactual thinking]. Unpublished raw data.
  6. ^ Crone, Damien L.; Levy, Neil L. (28 June 2018). "Are Free Will Believers Nicer People? (Four Studies Suggest Not)". Social Psychological and Personality Science: 194855061878073. doi:10.1177/1948550618780732.
  7. ^ Monroe, Andrew E.; Brady, Garrett L.; Malle, Bertram F. (21 September 2016). "This Isn't the Free Will Worth Looking For". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 8 (2): 191–199. doi:10.1177/1948550616667616.
  8. ^ Caspar, Emilie A.; Vuillaume, Laurène; Magalhães De Saldanha da Gama, Pedro A.; Cleeremans, Axel (17 January 2017). "The Influence of (Dis)belief in Free Will on Immoral Behavior". Frontiers in Psychology. 8. doi:10.3389/FPSYG.2017.00020.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Lcscnc (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Many problems with the sprawling article

Some how I stumbled on to this article when looking at set theory. Curiously I find the opening sentence A photo showing a boy jumping into a body of water. It is widely believed that humans make decisions (e.g. jumping in the water) based on free will. Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded to be wildly inaccurate since there are many facets of biology, primate as well as non-primate, which make choices followed by actions which does not require the need for cognitive forethought.

Choice and action taken as a matter of said choice need not suggest free will inasmuch as biology -- living tissue, whether plant or animal -- make non-cognitive choices based solely on biology. Plants choose to grow when subjected to an environment favorable to growth, and while biologically and non-cognitively choosing to grow, their actions are to grow -- regardless of whether their growth is impeded or not by external, environmental factors.

Plants are not said to have free will and yet they make decisions, they make choices, they perform actions predicated upon their biological imperatives, all of which are performed without "free will."

The whole article is sprawling and meandering, diving deeply in to mythology and the absurdities of the belief in gods, goddesses, pixies, and werewolves, virtually if not in textual fact. It seems as though a good, solid culling is in order for this article and a simplified version would more readily direct actual researchers, if any, to arenas deep in the woods of speculation if that's where they want to go.

The article as it stands is profoundly un-encyclopedic, the best solution would be deletion. SoftwareThing (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah no from your comment alone it's clear you have no grasp at all of the subtleties and controversies involved in the topic and are just upset that it doesn't simply assert your point of view as fact. (Hint: there are points of view, that are covered in the article if you'd actually read it, that hold that there's nothing "non-biological" about free will). --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The very first sentence is just awful. My problem is (apparently) the same as ST's; "unimpeded". It has no reasonably (or even remotely) clear meaning in this context. It requires/expects someone unfamiliar with the phrase Free Will to have some intuitive understanding of what is meant (here) by "unimpeded" and it very unlikely to be helpful to most, it certainly is confusing to me (since it is a nonsense claim). "Unimpeded" should be deleted from the first sentence.98.21.72.160 (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Emergence

None of the competing views seems to include emergence as a part of the process. People and things have a history line from the past to the present, when history lines collide and/or combine for the first time there is nothing in the universe capable of predicting what emerges. The properties of each line combine to form something completely unpredictable which requires a real time interaction by conscious beings. This is why the feeling of a necessity to make a choice or refrain from one has substance. Unconscious elements have only one result but conscious beings always have a minimum of two responses, do something or do nothing. The freedom to make these choices in real time is the only freedom that matters. Legally, as long as there is no external coercion or internal corruption, the maker of the decision is responsible for result and can be rewarded or punished accordingly. Jiohdi (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Emergence and complexity theory in general have implications for free will - but the is not yet in the literature. You need references; wikipedia is not a place for editor opinions -----Snowded TALK 12:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
You sound like a Liberal. :) OF COURSE, Wikipedia is a place for us editors' opinions. In the sense that what we do is because of our opinions. The fact is WHAT we editors choose to include is based on opinion and HOW we include it is based on opinion (as well, admittedly, as template and 'common practice'). What should be included should (ideally) come from published references. Just being silly (or is it pedantic?) here.98.21.72.160 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Arguments for free will

Most arguments oppose free will. Are there arguments in favor of free will, to balance the debate? Heymid (contribs) 19:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Unintelligible grammar

The section "Experimental Psychology" contains the sentence "For instance, priming subjects with information about an effect increases the probability that a person falsely believes is the cause." There is a noun missing between "a person falsely believes" and "is the cause". As it stands, this sentence has little or no meaning. This is clear when the sentence gets simplified to: "Disclosing an effect makes it so that a person falsely believes is the cause." The noun cannot be inferred from the rest of the sentence nor from the cited source, so I don't know what it's supposed to be, so I cannot fix it. ----Cowlinator (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Causal Determinism

The text reads that Quantum Physics provides a serious counterpoint to determinism, yet there is no explanation given. I wanted to add a why? tag but it didn't work. Superposition of particles does not dispute causality. Desdinova (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Free_will/Archive_26&oldid=1239773508"