Talk:Free will

• Talk:Free will/Archive-to-Dec-2004
• Talk:Free will/Archive-to-April-2006
• Talk:Free will/Archive-to-Sept-2006

Libet refs

Re: the Libet (1983) ref. There are numerous previous articles by Libet on timing of actions, but this is the first to introduce the rotating dot/second hand manipulation to get at the timing of the sensation of conscious will question; it is also considered the most important reference on this subject by modern commentators (see e.,g the Haggard 2005 TiCS paper). The closest previous is:

• Libet et al., 1982 Libet, B., Wright, E.W. Jr, Feinstein, B. and Pearl, D.K. (1982), ‘Readiness potentials preceding unrestricted “spontaneous” vs pre-planned voluntary acts’. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 54, pp. 322–35.

But this only focuses on the fact that the RP precedes spontaneous actions (previous studies had used actions in response to commands). User:edhubbard forgot to sign... It was posted about 10:00, 18 August, 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just wasn't casting doubt. I just wanted confirmation from someone who knows about it, whethere that would be the appropriate citation. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know. I was just saying that I had gone back and double-checked. I make plenty of reference mistakes (even a couple in published OR papers!) so no worries. Edhubbard 10:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Biology and free will

this section needs specific references (with page numbers, etc). i'm very familiar with this topic, but i don't recongize the precise claims being made, even where they are attributed to a source. --Rikurzhen 11:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I would appracite your help in getting it right, then, certianly. I founds the section lacking cmplòetely in sources and tried to match text with whatever sources I could find that conatined ideas resembling it. E.g., there was a statement about Desmond Morris. The only thing I have by Morris that expresses a sory of determinism is The Naked Ape. some parts are just.....bizarre. I left them with ciatiomns needed tags.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias

Pinker is a good source (The Blank Slate, chapter 10 "The Fear of Determinism"). However, it doesn't match with what's actually written there. I'll give it some more thought. --Rikurzhen 11:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I just went back through the edit log on the page, and it seems like the vast majority of what is in the section from "Desmond Morris" onward was added by an IP user on June 21, 2006. This is the only thing posted by this user. So, my guess is that this is probably not good stuff, but I don't have the expertise to either clean it up or make a decision on which bits are cancerous and which can be safely left. It seems like there might be a couple of salvagable sentences at the begining, but I am not sure about the rest. My expertise is in neuroscience/cognitive science (see my user page) and I have been doing what I can on those parts, but I see that you are a grad student in genetics, so this is definitely something that you know more about than either of us that are working on the project now. Edhubbard 11:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the factual statements about biology are true, but the statements linking them to free will appear to be made up. Pinker's view is that fear of determinism in the context of "genetics" and "evolution" is a mistake, that it is "a confusion of explanation with exculpation"(p.179), and that responsibility doesn't require behavior to be uncaused, only that it responds to praise and blame. --Rikurzhen 11:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on that section!! Just one criticism:

The view of most researchers is that many human behaviors can be explained in terms of humans' brains, genes, or evolutionary histories.

Terms like "most", "some", "a few" are frowned on becasue of WP:WEASEL. The view of which researchers? Even citations would be sufficient.

Tourette syndrome

User Sandy writes in Featured article review: "I've been watching the statement in there about Tourette syndrome for a long time. I have no idea what it's trying to say, so I hope you [Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias] can address that. I can't figure out what a neurological condition has to do with Free will." Maybe the following addition will help:

"While normals may also perform involuntarily movements (e.g., the patellar reflex), the movements and utterances that Tourette's patients make will usually be regarded as under free will in a normal person."

...or something similar? - fnielsen 22:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to catch up here, and without having reviewed what has been inserted in the article so far, a few comments:

Just a note: be careful of slippery slopes. I follow the medical and other TS literature very closely, and I'm not aware of any successful legal defense using TS as an "excuse".

Also, some clearing up of terminology: "normals" is problematic, implying people with tics aren't normal. A better word is needed.

Involuntary is also problematic. Please read Tourette syndrome, where you will see how the TS literature explains involuntary vs. unvoluntary in describing the semi-voluntary nature of tics. Again, it's tricky, so be careful of slippery slopes. In fact, it might be better to use another movement disorder as an example, since tics have been described as a voluntary response to an involuntary urge. You might want to focus instead on dystonias, choreas, or other movement disorders, since they don't involve a premonitory urge as in TS.

Third, "Tourette's patients" is also problematic, since the majority of people with TS never need medical attention. They are not all "patients" (or even worse, the British custom of referring to them as "sufferers"). Wiki guidelines (somewhere, I'm too busy to go look for them right now) advocate first-person language: people with Tourette's.

In general, I haven't yet figured out what this article was trying to say in relation to free will and TS, but will try to keep up with you all as you refine it. Sandy 18:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, 1) that para about "normals" and so on was not added to the text 2) I think, but I'm not an expertthat Edhubbard has addressed the issue of "involunrty versus "unvolunarty" in his revisions of that section. Whether another medical condition is more appropripate I will leave to you folks to work out. 3) Interesting point. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fnielsen, Thanks for your comments. I think I see what you were after with these comments, and I have tried to expand them to clarify my interpretation of your arguments. However, it should be noted that this section, and to a certain extent, the section above on neuroscience and free will, assume a certain viewpoint, namely that the brain creates our sense of free will, and it is only a matter of knowing whether this occurs before, after, or even independently of our actions. This being a philosophy entry, such assumptions are bound to provoke controversy, and perhaps would justify either eliminating or forking some of this more complex (and loaded) material. Let's see what the other editors have to say, and of course, if I've misinterpreted you, please feel free to correct anything that I've added. Edhubbard 00:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure. Oliver Sacks once wrote (don't remeber the book, don't remeber the condition right now) of the case of a patient who had extensive damage to some portion of the prefrontal cortex. The patient was fundamentally unable to make decisions. According to Sacks, his center of "agency" had been severely compromised. For example, he would stand in the shower for hours on end (even an entire day) thiking about his next action and not being able to carry it out. If experiments could be carried out (perhpas they have?) on chimps or bonobos which "knocked out" such an agency center in the brain, and the chimps could no longer act or make any other decision, then it would have been demonstrated that action, at least, is not under the control of some ontologically indepenednt thing called "free will" ir "self". There would still remain the question about thuought, desires and so on. If imaging technology can be refined to the point that it could detect changes in the brain that correspond to every change in thought, desire and so on, then an expeiemnt could hypothetically be set up so that one could determine wthere the "agency"-damaged indivuduals thoughts and desires really "belonged" to him or not. It could, in fact, be determined that "this" area of the brain is what creates the illusion of free will. I see no reason, in principle, why free will (of the metaphysical libertarian kind) cannot be falsified by further scientific investigation. I don't think all neorscintifict and cogntive science investigators just assume that the brain creates the illusian of free will (rightly so, IMO). Even if they do, it seems to me that this assumption wil eventually be called into question and there will be a serach for the neural correlate of free will, as there is now the neural correlate of consciousness. Being a philosphical naturalist, I believe that philosophy formulates the basic questions and science eventually provides the answers. Being a pessismit about free will, I think that science will eventaully prove that the existence of such a phenomenon is absurd. The processes in the barin which cause the sensation of free will must be investigated through futher experimentation of the right kind.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't yet reviewed what has been inserted in the article, but take care with Sacks, since not all of his views are shared by all of his peers. Sandy 18:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the text about Sacks. I was just responding to Ed about "my take" on the importance of science to this topic.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

At a personal level, I agree with you on all counts, Francesco, but I also wanted to flag this new section to you and the other editors to make sure that 1) its relevance to the philosophical question of free will was clear, and 2) to make sure that we don't get hit with an NPOV tag unnecessarily. Feel free (pun intended) to change anything in that section to make it better fit with the flow of the article. Edhubbard 08:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Actually, there was a similar problem with the emergentist section. I found this statement bizarre: in generative philosophy of.....there is no free will. Hmm??? Do you mean that it has solved the problem or what? So, I changed it to "it is assumed that there is no free will." I will scan through and see if there are any other strong implications of factual truth like that. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing is that the NPOV policy, with regard to science, just means that if the majority view of biologists, say, is that determinism of some kind is true, then it just has to be documented that that is the majority view.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I should have checked the article first: I see most of my wording and references from the TS article have already been used. I would make these changes (among the many movement disorders involving involuntary movements, only TS and tics disorders have the premonitory urge, utterances are tics, and avoid the use of patients).

For example, in persons with Tourette syndrome and related syndromes tic disorders , patients will involuntarily make movements, such as tics, and utterances, make involuntary movements and utterances called tics, despite the fact that they would prefer not to do so when it is socially inappropriate. Tics are described as semi-voluntary or "unvoluntary", because they are not strictly involuntary: they may be experienced as a voluntary response to an unwanted, premonitory urge. Tics are experienced as irresistible and must eventually be expressed. People with Tourette syndrome are sometimes able to suppress their tics to some extent for limited periods of time, but doing so often results in an explosion of tics afterward. The control which can be exerted (from seconds to hours at a time) may merely postpone and exacerbate the ultimate expression of the tic.

Sandy 18:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy on her edits. It's always a tough business when we deal with medical "conditions" (a term which is supposed to be neutral in the community, but has negative connotations in the broader world; see my pet project, the synaesthesia page). And Sandy is right, a lot of the science was a cut and paste from the Tourette's page, so a couple of the things that she mentions here might need to be double checked there, too. I'll get those changes right away. My main goal here was to improve and expand the original section by FNielsen enough that it can be seen as relevant to free-will issues, but it can always be improved. Edhubbard 07:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. All the changes were in the lead sentence, which we inherited from previous versions. There's nothing to double check on the Tourette's page. My bad. Edhubbard 07:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep ... Nothing to check on the TS page: I wrote it, and I'm the only TS person writing on Wiki :-) Much better now: I didn't understand what the article was saying before these changes. Now it makes sense. Sandy 11:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead para

Hi all. The first sentence of this article seems wrong: free will is a philosophical problem, surely, not a particular (libertarian) answer to that problem. How about this (as a first go):

The problem of free will is the prpblem of whether human beings really at freely, and therefore of what freedom of action means. Addressing this problem requires both understanding the relation between freedom and causation, and determining whether all events are subject to causation. Positions taken on the problem therefore argue both over determinism versus indeterminism - whether all events are caused or not - and over compatibilism against incompatibilism - whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not. So, for instance, hard determinists about free will argue that determinism is true, and that this makes real free will impossible.

Any thoughts? Cheers, Sam Clark 11:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've edit that para a bit: main problem was just the term pessimsism. I think "hard determinism" is more commonly used for that position. Pessimism, I think, is the idea that free will is false, whether determinism ois true or not.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Pessimism is a possible and by no means necessary psychological consequence tied more with fatalism than strict determinism. Zeusnoos 13:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sam. I've worked mostly on trying to find sources, restructring and copyediting up to this point. There is still much work to be done on the old boy, espcially in the phi section. I thought I would leave the lead for last. Besides the problems you hae noted, it is not even close to a summary of the article.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

New determinism section

Ok, I've changed the intro. The previous version did beg the question and there was that horrible, out-of-the blue, sentence about Marx and Engles versus relgious authroties. I've devoped the determinims section so as to get the varios determinisms we are not interetested in discussin out of the way. I don't think we can adress all dtermeiens in this artcile. But if someone disagree, please leave a note. Now, I'm just going to add refs for that part. Then, I have to get off for the day.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm=

Well, whatever the quality, one thing that cannot be said now is that this article lacks references. LOL!! --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have lost all the images. Let's put at least a few back in. Maybe a famous philosopher, and some scientific image, and maybe a religious one. Bmorton3 17:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Lost all?? There was only one when I first looked at it: an hyper-inflated image of D'Holbach in about the middle of the page. It was almost scary. I cut it down to 100pp and then, seeing that it still looked awkward with no other images, I just cut it out. t was weird. I will check in the history to see if there were any others. In any case, I agree there should be a few judiciously placed images added. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Leopoldus and Lobulus

Great image!! I will get the link to the transcipt of the whole trial. Darrow makes one of the most impsiring, near-philosophical, speeches I've ever heard from a lawyer. He just comes right out and says it: I could never be a prosecutor. What a horrible occupation. You have to try to fix blame on soemone in a universe as screwed up as this one. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Computability and free will

I was going to put in the following paragraph, but as this article is being reviewed for had at one point Featured status, I decided to throw my contribution to the dogs and see what people think. I think it should go in the "Science and free will" section, but whether under the new subheading "Computability and free will" or under "Physics..." or "Neuroscience...", I don't know. Here it is:

In his controversial book A New Kind of Science, author Steven Wolfram suggests that it may be possible for what fully appears to be free will to exist in a deterministic world because of what he calls the principle of computational equivalence. This principle posits that many computations of sufficient complexity are basically equivalent in the scope of what they can compute, and that their results cannot be obtained by any simpler computation.

If the workings of one's brain can be thought of as a "computation", then there is technically no such thing as free will. Yet if the principle of computational equivalence applies to the brain's workings, then there exists no way even in principle to determine what the outcome of the thought process will be that is any simpler than just observing the outcome of the process itself. So for every conceivable practical purpose, free will exists as an intrinsically intractable illusion brought on by the principle of computational equivalence.

To get some feel for the principle of computational equivalence, examples of such computations where that principle applies would (most likely) include NP-hard computations.

The early word "controversial" sounds like POV, but I believe that can be demonstrated. On the other hand, it certainly ins't essential. I am sure this could use some other rewording, but I think it may be a valuable contribution. Comments? Baccyak4H 15:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The subject is infinite!!

We may have to fork off the science section. Especially if we start adding the Wolframs, computational versus connectionist free will, free will as decsribed by Jennifer Lopez, etc........--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we have to be careful about adding any more to the science. From a philosophical point of view, this is a sign of an active field and question. However, from the standpoint of the free-will encyclopedia entry, we have to keep it on track. My vote is that we not add more stuff right now, as the article is still under FAR, but once that passes, we think about forking off the science and free will section, and then we should add the Wolfram thing... Wolfram's arguments remind me of Hofstader and Dennett's arguments about "as if" semantics/intentionality, given the recursive level-jumping abilities of human cognition. Perhaps Wolfram is on to something here, but it seems too speculative to include at this point. Discussing Wolfram's idea, and any controversy around it would definitely push us into forking. It's so close right now, I keep holding my breath when I look at the change log... Edhubbard 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a sub-variety of emergentist theory. Would it make more sense to rephrase the "Determinism and Emergent Behaviour" section to include computation complexity arguments? That stuff is already partly forked to Emergence. Let promote the Emergence link to a partial fork but leave the rest of the science for now. Bmorton3 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is never really what should be added to this article, but what short summaries should be left in it. Ideally, ALL the sections should be like the physics and free will, theology and free will, biology and free will section. There hsould be a link to main article: compatibilism (that should be seprated from incompatibilism, BTW) , for example, with a summary of three of four paras. [Determinism], same thing. The neuroscience section may need to be fairly extended. But, the point is, even if it were taken out, we should ask; "What needs to be left in this (main) overview article?"--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 16:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bmorton3, I like your first go through. Much more concise than my suggestion, in the right place, with reference. Baccyak4H 17:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

ISBN numbers

Does anyone know why older books don't have ISBN numbers on them? What the heck does ISBN stand for anyway?

Never mind. I got the answers at ISBN.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

ooh I like the Libet image!!! I looked for a good one and couldn't find one! Schopenhauer is good too. Bmorton3 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement in moral responsbility section

There is a statement in the "moral responsibility" section to the effect that one can reject free will and yet maintain that people are morally respobsility based in their character. A murder is dedetremined to murder, an honest man to act honestly, and so on. Bmorton3 suggest that this position can be attributed to virtue ethicists such as Alasdair MacIntytre, Philipa Foot or whomever. I have not read the actual writings of most of the people, but I was under the impression that virtue ethicists claim that virtues such as honesty, honour, valour, etc., are things that can be developed by choice. I'm not sure about this point. The articles here and the one on the SEP don't help very much in clarifying this simple issue either. Furhter, Neitzche wrote a great deal about virtues as dictinvt from moral values and such. He seems to strongly imply in various places that these virtues are fixed (either hereditray or learned). At the same time, he often ridicules this who are "too weak" to punish. If you put these notions together, you get something very close to the idea that mudereres are detsined to murder, honorable men are destined to be honorable, etc.. The problem is that, as usual with Neitzche, it's difficult to pin down to one passage or quote. Also, there are so many differing interpreatations that any attemopt to do so would probably amoung to origninal reserach. The same is true, mutatis mutandis, of Aristole in the Nichomahean Ethics. Galen Srawson definitely denies free will, but I don't know what his position on moral responsibility is. Unless someone can come up with something, we may have to just cut that one out.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty tough to find on this topic. What about this one: [1], although.. hm. he is a compatiblist. I have a feeling Freud or neo-Freudians would take this view point. Neo-Freudians more probably, since I don't think Freud cares much about the metaphysical idea of moral responsibility. Poor Yorick 08:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting view. It's good to find someone else around at this time of day. They are basically saying that moral responsibility is not a function of indivudual acts (this is a view shared by virtue ethisicts) but of character. If you have a murderous character, then you will tend to murder. That act of murdering is a reflection of the bad charater of the person in the first place. Howvere, one is not resppsniblfe for one's character. I think it's fine. Thamks. We can just modify the text a bit and bring it more in line with this view. Then we have a couple of references. Good job.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Virtue theorists in general beleive that it is character that is the appropriate target of moral judgements rather than actions (and I can find cites for that). Thus, whether character is developed freely or not it is still true that it is the character that is the appropriate target of praise and blame and punishment or reward, quite apart from whether the character was freely developed or not (which you're right they get cagey on quickly). But I agree that the cite you guys found is fine. I meant to mention P.F. Strawson (not his son Galen, whoops) whose beliefs on moral responsibility are developed in "Freedom and Resentment" 1962, which is linked at the bottom of P. F. Strawson, it is the locus classicus of the "reactive attitude" approach to moral responsibility and free will discussion, which might deserve some mention. Did any of the "Tookie" stuff make the point the last claim was trying to make? Bmorton3 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the general idea I have gotten about virtue ethics. It's very similar to what Cummins and the others are saying in any case. PF Strawson's view is indeed important and influential. We may have to make room for it. But, if not, it can be discussed in cthe compatibilims article or something. I did not look at the Tookie Williams stuff. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the whole section on moral responsibility is rather poor. The section should go from definitions of free will and moral responsibility first before commenting on the state of the art.

For instance, once you have defined free will as the ability to decide in agreement with one's principles or main goals and moral responsibility as the ability to include the threat of punishment into one's decision process, the remark on insanity becomes clearer and can simply be deducted as well as the case of young infants, drug addicts (to be cured) ...

This defintion also suggests that Dennett, for once, may have missed the point of moral responsibility and free will.

The quote from Sartre is funny in that this is very common knowledge (but hey ! Sartre is a respectable source).

The whole account on the semantic disputes between compatibilits is obscured by the lack of definitions. Equiped with the above definitions it is clear that determinism robing an agent from responsibilty totally misses the point unless one goes for non utilitarian view of responsibility : this must be made clear !MikalZiane 20:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not go back!!

After the work that was put in by vasrious people here, I would hope that the intention is not to go back to the sort of mess that we inherited from the previous editors.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User Lacatosias's Deletion

I had added the following paragraph to the article because I thought that it was of importance. The paragraph contains clear and simple assertions about the subject of this Wikipedia article by two famous thinkers. It actually presents the essence of free will in a very few words. However. User:Lacatosias decided that the contents of this paragraph were not of any value. By reprinting it here, I leave it to the reading public to decide whether there is any worth in the paragraph. In view of the frivolous references to popular culture that are allowed to remain in many serious Wikipedia articles, I have to admit that I was surprised to see that this paragraph was quickly removed from the article.

In his On the Freedom of the Will, Schopenhauer simply and clearly stated, “You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing.” Einstein, in his 1928 speech to the German League for Human Rights, assented. “I don’t believe in the freedom of the will,” Einstein said. “Schopenhauer’s saying, that a human can very well do what he wants, but can not will what he wants, accompanies me in all of life’s circumstances and reconciles me with the actions of humans, even when they are truly distressing. This knowledge of the non-freedom of the will protects me from losing my good humor and taking much too seriously myself and my fellow humans as acting and judging individuals.”

Lestrade 15:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Look the issue is where it should go if we put it in. Free-will is already on the long side and we can easily produce tons and tons of relevant quotes to fill it up. We don't have a Free Will in pop culture section yet. I suppose you could create one and put the Einstein quote there, if you really wanted to. It doesn't fit well in physics, cause it isn't about physics. There is already a Schopenhauer quote in the section on Schopenhauer. If there were consensus that this quote was better we could replace it, but I don't think we'd want 2 Schopenhauer quotes, certainly not as block quotes. You could also create another page, and reference it here. If you wanted a Schopenhauer on free will page, you could create that, put lots of Schopenhauer quotes, including Einstein's reference too him, and then we could re-work how Schopenhauer is discussed on the main page. But just adding more quotes, even when they are relevant, is going to slowly get the page in the kind of trouble that almost lost it its FA status. Bmorton3 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to adress this issue, folks. I'ìve replcaed one of the Shopengauer quotes (there are now 2 in that section) and I decided to put the Einstein quote in the physichs and free will sections to provide it woth spem context:

Einstein himself put his position on free will in these terms in a 1928 speech to the German league for Human Rights.

I don’t believe in the freedom of the will. Schopenhauer’s saying, that a human can very well do what he wants, but can not will what he wants, accompanies me in all of life’s circumstances and reconciles me with the actions of humans, even when they are truly distressing. This knowledge of the non-freedom of the will protects me from losing my good humor and taking much too seriously myself and my fellow humans as acting and judging individuals.

I need a source for this!! Otherwise it's useless in any case. Now, I have to leave in a rush!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the "useless" quote, take a minute from your busy schedule to visit

http://www.einstein-website.de/z_biography/credo.html Lestrade 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Nice bit of sophistry, but you know I meant "useless beccause unsourced",and not "useless because inane or irrelevant" by that idiot Einstein. Geesh!! Anyway,I'm glad we could resolve this amicably. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 19:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As you will now see, he first wuote os in the text. The one from Einsetein needs a source. Problem solved!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I agree that we need to be selective about how much we add. The goal of wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. As Bmorton noted on the FAR page, there is a danger that the page becomes too long, and/or cluttered with things that are off topic, redundant, or even simply non-optimal. See, for example, the discussions above on science and free will. I am going to make a few minor additions to that, now that it's Friday and I finally have some time away from OR to work on wikipedia, but they will be small and (hopefully) focused and relevant enough to make it worth keeping them. I think the same constraints have to be kept in mind with quotes by Shopenauer or Einstein. It seems like Lacatosias has made a reasonable compromise after Lestrade posted here, of including the quotes without letting the page grow too long. Edhubbard 16:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

New image

I tend to be a very visual thinker, so I thought that perhaps some people would appreciate this simplified diagram of the possible philosophical positions regarding the problem of free will. I created the image using MS Word, and then converted to png going through Photoshop. I have the original text and can modify the image to specs if anyone wants a higher resolution version, of if you have any thoughts about chaning it around. One thing that I noticed is that my thinking seems clearer if I put the question of determinism first, and the question of whether free will exists or not as secondary. If we just reorder the two quesions in the intro this will flow, and there will be a good fit between the image and the text. Let me know what you think. Edhubbard 23:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded an improved version of the image. Now all the possible philosophical positions are located at the same level, so we aren't putting on above another. I have also added question marks for the two main questions, and colored those boxes orange. The blue and gray have been lightened, as they appeared somewhat too dark on my screen at thumbnail size (although it was ok at full size). Let me know if you have any other changes. Edhubbard 23:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Great thanks!Bmorton3 13:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Moral responsibility

I've added several new paragraphs on what neuroscience means for our understanding of free will and moral responsibility to the end of the moral responsibility section. It's a complex issue, and I've leaned very heavily on one paper that seems really good to me (the Greene and Cohen paper). If anyone has time to look it over, and perhaps edit it a bit more, please feel free. At this point, it doesn't quite flow with the rest of the section in the way that I would hope. Edhubbard 14:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can edit it down a bit and try to make it more philosophically neutral. But I don't see a real problem. I wanted to add something like this all along, but I don't have access to a library and have only my personal library (relatively scarce on this kind of material) and the Internet to rely on. It's all factually accurate, though, and I should be able to find some other sources to back it up. The moral responsibility section did seem to need something. My only reservation is that we shoudln't go inot conseuqntialism, juctice and so on and wind up opening up the whole question of moral philosophy.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I sort of wondered about the consequentialist/retributivist part, myself, but felt like it might open us up to pushing a particular viewpoint about how neuroscience was undermining the notion of free will. A couple of useful sources from the web, with free pdfs, etc. Neuroethics and Josh Greene's site (disclaimer: Josh is a friend of mine, but I don't think that makes me inherently biased; especially for a talk page). Feel free to go to those two pages for other articles, etc, etc.

In other news, I'll be on vacation from Aug. 29 to Sept. 15, actually in your area. We're going to Rome, Napoli, and then Florence. So, no edits from me... I think my girlfriend would kill me ;->. Edhubbard 15:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh hoh!! have a good trip and enjoy the magnificent ancient wonders of Rome. DO NOT underestimate Napoli, however!! It is a more ancient (founded by the Greeks as Neopolis) and less ostentatios city than Rome, but if you really look around, you can find an infinity of cultural and artistic wealth there. Florence is another universe. I haven't been up there in many years. Thanks for the links. Apart from Wikipedia, I've always been fascinated with this kind of stuff.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy, Italy. As I've said I went to a great conference on all this stuff in May, but the webpage that had all the papers was taken down last month, they'll be a book version out in a year or so, and there will be lots of great stuff to add to the moral responsibility part, we could easily push this to a sub-page based on what is already out there if we wanted. Bmorton3 13:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the whole section on Greene and Cohen's paper useless since their conclusion (that the legal system does not require a libertarian interpretation of free will) is obvious and in any case does not require neuro science (but proper definitions of free will and moral responsibility). A real conclusion to this section on moral responsibilty is necessary, not a new red herring. MikalZiane 14:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Weak free will as a foundation for moral responsibility

Surprisignly this article does not clearly define free will. It is fine to give a historical account of the disputes but depending on the defintion of free will one could answer the questions "is there free will" or "is free will compatible with determinism" differently. The article on compatibilsm is better on this point.

A compatibilist could define (weak) free will as the ability to decide according to one's principles (or main goals ...). This ability may depend not only on the person making the decision but on the moment of decision and on the kind of decision. Then, moral responsibility can be defined as sensibility to the threat of (some) punishment. A counter example could be a drug addict willing to (say) be healthy but not able to resist the urge of using drug (even if this first implies commiting a crime). Weak free will enables moral responsibility since (in principle) the threat of going against a free man's goals (surviving, not going to jail ...) influences the free man's decisions.

This is not "strong free will" since the illusion of random choice is dismissed as non relevant to moral responsibilty. Equipped with this defintion I guess it is much easier to see the point of compatibilists, is it not ? MikalZiane 15:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured article review

Many of you have done amazing work on this article in roughly two weeks. I finally looked at the state of this article when nominated for FAR—what a difference! (I am almost done with my own copy review of it.) Truly the best of Wikipedia here! Outriggr 09:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was almost intimidatingly bad. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Audio file

I actually think this is a servicable article; thus, I uploaded an audio file reading its contents. I hope this makes it a better article yet. Brinticus 18:59, 15 September 2006

Thanks!Bmorton3 16:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Such a big article about something that doesn't exist.

--Greasysteve13 07:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A miniscule article on one of the deepest, most challenging topics that mankind has ever, or will ever, have to confront. With PROFOUND impliactions for every single thing that we ever do, say, believe, think, feel, touch. "Big" indeed....--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to be grandiloquent here. The fact that there have been many disputes on the matter is no hint of a profound topic but rather of semantic confusion. I claim that the issues are rather simple once you define the concepts properly. MikalZiane 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, we disgree profoundly on this. But, ONCE AGAIN, neither what you claim now what I claim is relevenat to an encylopedia article and you know it. So stop being a troll trying to insert Original Rserach and POV or you will eventaully get yourelf kicked out of here.--Francesco Franco 16:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell me Lacatosias how your comment above is less POV than mine ? MikalZiane 19:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't. That's exactly my point. This whole section is not only POV, it is an irrelveant discussion of the topic of free will, not the article. The person who posted the original comment was wrong to post it. I was wrong to respond and you were worn to respond to my response. It should be deleted by some administrator.--Francesco Franco 20:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I got your point: do what I say, no what I do ;-) I wrongly assumed than a guy with that many barnstars could not act wrongly. My mistake.MikalZiane 20:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, barnstars != moral infallibility (or any other kind). Your mistake.--Francesco Franco 07:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

something different to consider

I don't believe in free will because the term seems oxymoronic.. if your actions are caused, they are not free, and if uncaused, they are not willed... however there does seem to be one majorly relevant factor that seperates us from say any computer. We care about what will happen to us personally, and our caring effects our actions and decisions in a way that leads to the concept of freewill. computers do not feel pain nor pleasure as far as anyone can tell and so they dont really have any part of them that CARES whether they win nor lose nor how they play the game. They dont worry about the out come, they dont fear pain coming to them and so have no need to get out of its way... this selfish self centered self determining concern is also what creates meaning for us.. our caring asigns value to every aspect of reality. Science has a very difficult time dealing with consciousness and its impact on the world because there is no easy way to measure nor quantify what is the root of caring about measuring and quantifying. After saying all this, it seems that at the core, the goal of everything is no different from standard physics... we want peace of mind or energy balance just like any other element of nature.. when our mind becomes dis-eased we move to bring it back to balance... at the pinnacle of satisfaction there is no goal higher to reach for, otherwise we would not be satisfied... but satisfaction is fleeting and quickly lost to some new disturbance that requires attention because living systems cannot stay alive in a completely balanced state... so we are driven by our nature, certainly not free of it..but individually we are free agents working out our own agendas to bring about our own satisfactions. This realization came from the remarks Gary Gasparov made after beating and losing to DEEP BLUE the IBM chess program... he said something along the line of, there was no thrill of victory in beating a machine that did not care if it lost. Jiohdi 20:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What you are discussing is a serious concern about the consequences of the non-existence of free will. It is similar to the intuitive concenr that many people feel that, without genuine free will, they would not be able to take credit for their artistic, scientific, or other acheivements. If I'm not free, I didn't actually DO this or this, etc.. Dostoyevski once put the whole thing this way: (paraphrasing) "science will one day prove that man is nothing more than a piano-stop and everything can be calculated to the minutest detail, etc. And what will man do? He will destroy the crystal palace (created by science) and declare that he is NOT a piano-stop just to prove that he is not a piano-stop. He will aslo declare that 2 and 2 is five, if he likes. This is becasue man is the "ungrateful biped." On other words, man is unfree, but will never accept that fact. He can't. It would rob him of the illusion of importance. But none of this is new or goes into the article though.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

seems to me that freewill is not the actual issue in anyones mind, what really matters is the freedom to do what one wishes to accomplish his own goals and that is an external concern. we can never be free of what we are and what we have become because of our experiences, but we do care about what will become of our own goals and that is where the only freedom that matters is found. can I take credit for my talents? not really, but can I be compensated for having them, absolutely!! in this respect I am not different from any machine that is employed to accomplish a task, it must be serviced and purchased, so my time is valuable, not only to me but to anyone who needs to deal with me...no freewill required. am I responsible for my actions? not in any metaphysical sense, but again like any machine, if I become a hazard I must be dealt with. We dont hold rabid dogs responsible for getting rabies but we do remove them from society and humanely put them to sleep because at this time they cannot be cured. I find humans should not be treated worse than this and the current prison system, based on the myth of freewill is absurd. We take a threat to society, place it in a de-humanizing enviornment and when it is worse than when it was admitted, we release it into the general population with a safe for use stamp on it because it did its time according to another mythical justice balancing sheet.Jiohdi 13:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Humanely put the incurably troublesome to sleep,eh?? Sounds very familiar. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

About some interpretation of Science regarding Freewill

I have notice Someone left out very important info that comes from respected magazine (Scientific American Mind, for example); To erase and copy and paste a previous record of this same page/article on wikipedia would be too easy, but I won't play those games. This article shouldn’t represent Wikipedia. Everybody erase whatever they want, even if the info is clearly from a legitimate source. Then come those who wants to advocate a point with a "fair-words" mask (specially those who seek to vanish the "freewill" concept from our world- and they have no idea what they are talking about; If you knew that you have no freewill , then you will try so hard to prove that freewill exist, that you would contradict your previous statements just for the relief of the notion that you can , indeed, become whatever you want). Imagine to say to Einstein that he would never amount to nothing, because he cannot control his passionate heart or his attention in order to become a physicist. Good news that teacher was wrong. And It wasn't luck that he became a physicist. It was his motivation, the same thing that defeat his weird proceedings at school; And that's the point: We try so hard to prove that we are not free because we cannot control everything in our lives that we forgot there things that we can control, and that freewill isn't about control in everything of our behavior, but about control in the most essential things of our ethical behavior. To believe in these things we don't need to address notions of a complete control of our destinies or a completely simultaneous action to notion nervous system. Only the part that ask "Can we change our behavior so that we prevent ourselves to engage in murder, rape, addiction, pathological gambling, stealing, etc.?" - And the answer to that question takes the form of a repetitive "Yes, WE can"... Notice the WE... We need to stop framing the question. Scientifically... Let's consider the plabebo/nocebo effect... Can we deny the power of that? NO; Another view: If this articles says that some scientist controlled to some degree the actions of some volunteers in an experiment, and use that implicitly as a notion against freewill, then this article is implicitly wrong, because the only thing that prove is that a group of educated people (Humans) affected at will, in deliberate fashion, the actions of another human being- We could change behavior in a reproducible, at will manner, at least statistically- BY the way, 80% influence leave room for a 20%- a low but not negligible number, and , judging by the experiment, from 60% to 80%, that leave room to figure out it is somewhat not as easy as you might imply with the sequence of the sentences in the article, which put it (maybe without the intention) that we are controlled even when we feel free. Consider that we don't need always a logical explanation to our behavior, cause social psychology have established that we are often bias in our decisions. Even the FDA can be bias, and that's why they pre-commit to the double-blind type of trial. We can prevent. If our mind isn't always rational, then a decision framework between our impulses and our rational goals can be seen. And evidence suggests it have been seen in action (Limbic System vs. Prefrontal Cortex). Here we all could train our mind to use more the limbic System or the Prefrontal Cortex, and the capacity to modify behavior in a controlled fashion, one that we could use again and again with fairly good results, be it with drugs, electroshock, therapy or electronically- controlled devices, is an example of freewill. Again, evidences indicate that this is probable. Are we going to contradict ourselves and put as wrong the Behavioral Science partial success, those written in another article of Wikipedia, their findings of behavior modification? What about Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (or self-defeating prophecy); could we deny it? (Take a young delinquent with some brain and a little heart and tell him he’s too stupid to stop being a punk and become a honorable Professional; Chances are he will defy your claim and change his behavior, just to show you who’s the punk now). Can we deny that the discovery of a genetic basis for aggressive behavior, for example, opens the possibility for new drug treatments? - Also, aside from experimental status, Can we deny that today we can change or alter some genes in our human cells? Can we deny that neural prothesis today is used however experimental it might be, and that those devices are indeed programmed by an engineer to perform - or exclude- certain tasks? Can we use these devices to prevent a rape or a murder? However inhumane it might sound, it is not only possible but probable, even very viable these days. But if the criminal volunteer to use the device it sounds less offensive (less than his actual raping or killing of a victim. Fortune we have. We don't need those radical methods. There is evidence that therapy and Psychiatry often helps. Remember we don't need a 100% improvement to say that someone is doing everything on his power to take responsibility for his ethical actions. Maybe freewill is about that. Honestly trying. The sure thing is that freewill isn't what we thought. We are not as free as we believed. But, do these render the concept obsolete? No; We need something that speed up our motivation to change and that's the Freewill Concept- it's like a placebo effect, and maybe (just maybe) doesn't exist as something pre-established, rather it exist as long as the believe create and develop it. That is not to say it doesn't exist or that is not possible. I know it's unfair to regard us as guilty as sin when we can't control ourselves, but that's the point, instead of the old concept, put a new version that is honest enough so that we are motivate to take responsibility but understand our limitations on behavioral control. There things we do control. Things that have to do with commitment. If freewill doesn't exist, moral responsibility is a fraud...And you can say goodbye to fairness. Ethical responsibility is like the rules of basketball- It doesn't derive it existence from the genes or the place the players live, but from commitment from those players to play the same game with those rules. Freewill is the same. A pre-commitment, based on new scientific grounds, can be worked upon. Then Freewill is conservative: it is not destroyed nor created; only changes form.

Oh, this is just an WP:OR essay. Ok, no harm done. Though people DO get angry when I do this on politics talk pages for some reason.--Francesco Franco 07:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew they'd start back sooner or later. No comment. --Francesco Franco 07:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Signed comment on article page?

I moved the following, signed text (which therefore appered to be a comment) from the main article page:

Free will could be defined (somehow like Hume did) as the ability to decide in agreement with one's principles or main goals. Then, moral responsibility could be defined as sensibility to the threat of punishment. Free will (which then depends not only on the person but on the decision to make) is then necessary to moral responsibility as well as it requires some kind macroscopic determinism.MikalZiane 20:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you would like this text added to the main article, please provide some citations for this. Otherwise, it will be treated as unreferenced OR, and therefore inappropriate for the main page. Edhubbard 20:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for signing the "comment". It is a mere synthesis on the link of free will with moral responsibility so that I thought it would recapitulate the section nicely. This definition of free will is close to Hume's (mentionned above in the same section) and the definition of moral responsibility is simply utilitarian (maybe a link to the article on justice would be useful).MikalZiane

Hi MikalZiane, I assumed that it was a comment, and therefore belonged on the talk page for three reasons.

1) It was signed. Nothing in article space should be signed, and everything on talk pages should be.

2) It was unreferenced. There is no reason for a whole paragraph on wikipedia to be unreferenced. Wikipedia is so often flooded with original research (see my point 3) that almost everything needs to be cited anymore (not quite to the level of "the sky is blue" but close!).

3) It seemed to be your opinion (i.e., WP:OR). Phrases like "could be defined" have no place in an article. Statements like "Hume defined..." or even "Searle suggested that Hume argued that Aristotle was wrong" followed with an appropriate reference belong in an article.

Finally, the text does not really seem to add anything new. I don't think that we need a summary of what is already there. Perhaps we can see what the other editors think, and we'll see if there is something that we've missed that needs to be added here. Edhubbard 21:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your points Edhubbard but :

a) if you read the discussion (as well as the talk on compatibilism) you'll see that some readers seem confused by the article and especially by the compatibilist view;

b) especially the link between Hume's (or compatibilists') free will and moral responsibility is not very clear in the section on moral responsibility; by highliting that there is a logical link between Hume-like free will and a utilitarian view of justice the compatibilists' point seems much clearer I think;

c) the whole article does not really discuss how free will and determinism could be defined and the impact of those definitions on the issues.

I acknowledege that my signing the paragraph was a mistake and I see that the style was not appropriate. On the other hand this "clarification" would go well at the end of the moral responsibility section or maybe be included in the paragraph on Hume but it does not fit as the parapraph ends in some confusion but simply listing some responses and counter responses rather thand trying to give a synthesis.

This is indeed my point on this article : there is too much tracking of disputes and too little synthesis so that I am surprised by the bronze star. I understand that original research is excluded from articles but on the other hand if editors simply list disputes the risk is to be confusing. Some syntheses must be made and some links highlighted.

How can this article get a bronze star when there is simply no conclusion recapitulating the issues but a list of unrelated hare-braned disputes ! MikalZiane 12:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Our job as an encyclopedia is to present information to readers in a summarized, NPOV way. Any conclusion here would be POV, whose side would be conclude on? The disputes (hare-brained or not, unrelated or not) are simply on-going, and have been for a long time. That is the nature of philosophy. Bmorton3 15:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure Bmorton3 but the point is not to take side but to clarify the issues, not simply to list disputes simply because they have been published. Take Edhubbard's contribution to the "Moral responsibility section": he summarized a totally useless paper from Greene and Cohen which simply diverts the reader from the issues. He uses 14 lines for that ! But he at least he was NPOV and he quoted a respectable source ! This is becoming ridiculous. Neutrality is simply illusional, the editor necessarily makes editorial choices. At least these choices should be honest if not neutral and should try and clarify the issues.

Philosophy is not a mere list of disputes: what a cynical view. Wikipedia readers deserve more than mere philology : they deserve real articles that clarify the issues.MikalZiane 20:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, philosophy is certainly NOT a mere list of disputes. But this is not a philosophy article. It is an encyclopedia article about a PHILOSOPHICAL topic which states the issues, the various positions taken and the argumentation used to defend those positions. To go further would be to engage in philosophizing. That's not the idea here, old boy.--Francesco Franco 08:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure but this article does not really state the issues : it does not even try and define free will precisely nor moral responsibility. This article became a (poor) article in the field of history of ideas and not a article on a philosophical topic ! A philosophical topic ought not simply be explained by listing all the disputes and confusions more or less related to the topic.

In this very case what must be done is first explaining that the defintion of free will is precisely the cornerstone of all the disputes. Then recall why (historically) the concept(s) of free will emerged and especially the link with moral responsibility. This is partially done is the article but not clearly. Other aspects of free will such as the link with origination must be mentionned in the introduction too but as an editorial choice probably be discussed in a seperate section as it brings confusion.

Then a section on moral responsibility and free will could hightlihght that Free-Will as self-determination defintions enable moral responsibility provided that it is defined in a utilitarian perspective. It would be useful then to list other possible defintions of moral responsibility and check out whether the links with some definition of free will have already been pointed out (or is obvious). An so on.

Of course the state of the art will be introduced, but only to support the article not to merely augment it with a new reference. No new ideas would be proposed, but maybe new didactic tricks. MikalZiane 13:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"The state of the art"....ok, I get it now. Thanks for entertaining us here, but Wikipedia is not a forum. (;--Francesco Franco 13:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for weighing in here -- I don't visit this page much -- but what is it that Mikal has proposed just lately (Oct 4 13:30) which is unacceptable? The possibility that the free will debate is a merely verbal one has quite a place in the history of the subject. This was Hume's argument in the Enquiry (Section 8), though he shied away from use of the term 'free will', since it was the hot-button item in the first place. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 14:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit-creep, ladies and gents. I warned you. I can tell just where this is going.

but to adress your question specifically: Yes, this is dicussed in the article. It is NOT what Mikail propose to insert just lately. He proposed this:

Free will could be defined (somehow like Hume did) as the ability to decide in agreement with one's principles or main goals. Then, moral responsibility could be defined as sensibility to the threat of punishment. Free will (which then depends not only on the person but on the decision to make) is then necessary to moral responsibility as well as it requires some kind macroscopic determinism

Now, let me take it apart very carefully so that everyone who has some experience editing FAs, such as Sandy, but not knowledgeable about philosophy can easily get it. "Free will could be defined".... violates WP:WEASEL and WP:NOR. I think this is obvious. "Somehow like Hume did" does not constitute a reference. "Moral responsibility could be defined...." same exact thing. The final sentence is obviously a conclusion (erroneously, BTW) drawn from the first two unverified premises. That's it. I have to get off-line. Please read more carefully next time, lucidish. Or is it that you are trying to get me to abandon this thing too. --Francesco Franco 14:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, that didn't answer the question, because it appealed to something besides the 13:30 post. Perhaps I was unclear in my question. I wanted to know what it was in the 13:30 proposal which was unacceptable.

The sentences which followed were meant to address and reference one of Mikail's core greivances, that the free will discussion is a merely verbal dispute. His lack of reference etc. is all a fault, sure, but that's why I provided one (Enquiry, section 8). Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 15:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my response was that this point is already addressed in the article in the section on "other views". It may need to be expanded a bit. I will can easily do that myself when I have time. I obviously know Hume and can find the reference and have the whole thing finidhed in less than half an hour. Is there anythin else? Do you also support his vie that the article is "poor", that is needs to overhauled from top to bottom, the meanignlsess nonsens that he actually did try to insert above or the other OR that he has stated on this page? Basically, there are two sides on this matter, this article can be taken over by cranks like what's his name or not? If it does, I go. You can either support me or not. Where do you stand?--Francesco Franco 16:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not by any stretch of the imagination support the view that the article is poor. In fact, I disagree with many of the things Mikal has said elsewhere on this page. (For instance, his flippant dismissal of the law/philosophy related article which Ed Hubbard added, and seeming resistence to NPOV standards). But when I ask questions about specific points, I really mean them to be focused on those points, with no prior bias toward or against the persons involved. I'm genuinely sorry if this upset you. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 00:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no no,. Iìm not going to do this for you in fact. HA. If you want to expand on the topic of free will as sementic illusion, Lucish, BE MY GUEST!! Make sure it's references and make sure it flows with the rest of the article. Otherwise, I will revert it as garbage. Plain and simple. --Francesco Franco 16:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've expanded on the section about the ilussion of free will as a merely verbal matter a bit. From here on, no more. Let me explain something Lucidich, the reason he can't cite sources is that he does not know anything about philosophy and will not take the time to work his ass off to do the research to find out what the almost infinite versions of compatibilism are. That's something that I do, you see. It's MY LIFE. He's a software engineer who just happens to be playing around here and expressing hiw own ridiculous opinions, just like any good troll and crank. If you defend him......enough said. Asking ME for favors, for god's sake!!--Francesco Franco 17:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Very entertaining Francesco Franco. So you say I will be kicked for NPOV while you obviously do not even respect elementary etiquette. The original insertion was clumsy and lacked references and was signed. Ok, wow, big deal. I already agreed. The rest of my points remain and contrary to what you think I have read on free will. But what I understood quickly from philosophy classes is that reading is one thing but thinking by yourself is way more important. Most of the students (even the graduate students) in philosophy that I met confused philosophy and history of philosophy. I was even insulted in class by a felow student because I suggested that (and tried to explain why) Kant's third antinomy was poor. Now Lacatosias if you think this article must list all the versions of compatibilism, fine go ahead, it seems easier to you that trying to find a way to present the issues clearly. MikalZiane 20:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mikal, I share your greivance with respect to popular scholarship. Nevertheless, let's face it: this venue (Wikipedia) is not about thinking for yourself, except in the narrow sense that your own passions and ideas can lead you to research ideas which others have endorsed in other papers, and then show a more general audience about these interesting papers. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 00:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for falling for the bait. Arrogant as said, no, Ed? No comment.--Francesco Franco 07:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You ARE right about one thing, though: Writing good encylopedia articles about philosophy (fundamnetally History of Philosophy or history of ideas or whatever you want to call it) does not make one anywhere near a good philosopher. But, then, I never claimed to be a good philosopher!! I do try to do philosophy, but at school or in my own unpublished, and probably unpublishable, essays. I am just a loser with serious physical and mental illnesses who happens to love philosophy, history of philosophy, history in general, literature, science, poetry, and any other form of knowledge that exists on the face of the earth. Whatever I do, I do the best that I can. I can do no more. --Francesco Franco 07:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Bmorton, Dbuckner, Sam Clarke, and several others, who ARE published philosophers (unlike yourself) have all expressed appreciation for my contributions here. Indeed, I suggest you take a look at User:Dbuckner's user page comments about the state of catastropic state of philosophy on Wikipedia....except for my contributions. He no longer contributes here because of people like yourself, I strongly suspect. --Francesco Franco 07:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's some evidence that I do think for myself sometimes (violating the rules) and the harsh rebuffs I get from admins when I do. No admins seem to care here. I think I easily won that argument, BTW. --Francesco Franco 07:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok Francesco Franco, I see that you consider this article as, somehow, your baby, and you are defending it like a tigress. I can understand that, since you have put a lot of effort in it. But if was a bit harsh on the state of the article, do not take it personally, apparently you worked on saving it. I just say there is still (or again) a serious opportunity for improvement by first introducing the main definitions of free will and moral responsibility and highlithing the link between them. I am new here and my attempt to do it was inappropriate but you are certainly able to do it yourself.

There is some truth in the position that the current article gives a misleading impression that the notion of free will is univocal and unproblematic. Alos, the section on moral responsibility seems to be an irrevelant addition instead of a central part of the issue. It's difficult to rework this things wihtout opening the pandora's box of infinite lsts of peoples preferred definitions, though. I will work on it a bit.--Francesco Franco 08:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

State of this article after everyone on god's green earth added their improvements

[Here it is. This phenomenoin has been dubbed edit-creep. If the process now starts all over again, the same exact thing will happen and it will end up in FAR again in a few months so that a limited group of about 3 or 4 editors can pointlessly fix it again. It is the eternal recurrence of the worst of all possible worlds. Dbuckner is right. This is hopeless. --Francesco Franco 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. I noticed that one of the proposals on the "Experts retention" proposal was "lock featured articles." My recommendation: Take your eyes away, don't look, and come back once a month or so. Do a giant diff between the version that's accumulated random crap and the featured version, and starting with the featured version, only add back the reasonable changes. People may whine over WP:OWN, but since you got it back to FA status, I doubt anyone will complain. SnowFire 20:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't. --Francesco Franco 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Francesco, if edit creep has again deteriorated the article, I support an immediate revert to the post-FAR version of your choice. MichaelZaine, please refrain from adding unsourced original research. Thank you, Sandy 21:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't follow you FF. Your link is not to a diff. This diff is what I would say has changed since the article came back into form (if you'll allow me to include in the "good" version my copy edit, BMorton3's correction, and a bot that fixes ISBN's), and none of the subsequent edits look problematic to me. I'm all for your general concern but I don't see any evidence of edit creep yet (!!). –Outriggr § 23:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the accumulated edit-creep that had originally transformed this article from an FA to the monstrosity that I linked to. If some of the suggestions on the talk page, and elsewhere, are added, then edit-creep is inevitable once again. This is actually very simple. I have not made a logical argument, but a falsifiable empirical assertion. Think of this article as sort of experimentum crucis. --Francesco Franco 07:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - there were a couple of ways to read your first comment and I chose the wrong one (or, I just read it incorrectly). –Outriggr § 23:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandy are you talking of the article or the discussions ? I already acknowledge my mistake concerning the article (albeit pointing out its poor state, the ambiguity of "neutrality" and "respectable source" and the need to add synthesis (not original matter)).MikalZiane 07:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Referring to the article: I was only pointing out that unsourced material can't be added to the article. Sorting things out on the talk page is appropriate. Sandy 14:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If the "synthesis" you propose is not sourced, it will be deleted immediately per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:WEASEL and so on. Further, it is arguable that synthesis, in philosophy, IS original research. Finally, there are many, many articles in philosophy that need to be radically improved much more than this one. How about working on consciousness, philosophy, mind, Alexius Meinong, Daniel Dennett, ad infinitum. 99.9% of the articles that User:Dbuckner has found in his exhative examination of ALL the articles listed in the category "Philosophy" (or whatver the heck he is doing) need SERIOUS ATTENTION. Go fix THEM. You ARE an expert, aren't you? --Francesco Franco 07:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: Your quarrels with WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable sources should be taken up on their respective talk pages (good luck (0;) and not taken out on this article. --Francesco Franco 08:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I explained why in this very article, especially in the section on moral responsibility, some referenced material is confusing or useless when clarification of synthesis is needed. Whether or not this clarification or synthesis is, or is not, philosophy is not the point. The point is how this article can be improved. The point is that by trying to ban original material one should not become blind to the point of banning any chance of clarification. This very article is not clear and readers (read the discussions) are confused. Definitions must be given, and the links between issues must be highlited. A mere litany of referenced material is not enough. This does not mean that totally new ideas are welcome but that (possibly) new ways to explain things in a didactic way should be welcome. When a professor teaches a class he or she may do it his or her own way and be a creative teacher without presenting any new research.

Let's be specific. If I say "X, Y and Z proposed this definition of Free Will and the common point of those definitions is that Free Will is ... " is it banned or not ? If I say "note that this defintion is directly linked to a utilitarian view of justice" is it banned or not even if I do not know if somobedy has already pointed out this obvious (as obvious that the sky is blue) relationship ? MikalZiane 12:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"People are confused, read the comments". Most of the comments on this page go back to loooooooong before the recent FAR salvaging operation. Since then there have been very few. Most of them seem to be yours. --Francesco Franco 13:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mikal, I understand your frustration. Nevertheless, I've found that making an argument in this venue while relying on unsourced statements is like going to a gunfight without a bulletproof vest. No matter whether you're right or wrong, you'll still end up hurt.

Could you say a bit more on this "utilitarian" connection? To say things are connected is not to say how they are connected, and in the latter you will find genuine clarity. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 14:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure Lucidish. From a utilitarian perspective the main point of punishment is deterrence: "The credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices" utilitarism. From this perspective, responsibility is sensibility to the threat of punishment: the ability to include the threat of punishment into one's decision process to possibly refrain from breaking the rules (not necessarily though, depending for instance on the odds to get caught). Punishing one who is not able to include this threat is simply diminishing total welfare (as well as equity since total welfare is a poor measure if it is not balanced with some equity rule to limit punishment to the smallest acceptably deterrent one). Now if the point of free will is to found moral responsibility (ignoring origination) a sufficient definition is the ability to decide in agreement with one's principles and main goals. From this perspective it does not matter what caused the decision to break a rule : what is relevant if whether or not the threat of punishment is (on average) effective at minimal cost (on welfare). So, from this perpective "hard determinism" is not an issue but as said in the article (some kind of macroscopic) "determinism is a prerequisite for moral responsibility". This minimal determinism is required by the very assumption that the responsible agent is trying to achieve goals. Admitedly it must also be possible to find a punishment which will go against a rule breaker's principles or goals (e.g. stay alive ...). If this is not possible because those goals are unknown for instance, then one might be wrongly considered as responsible because it was not understood that the threat of punishment was inneffective.

This said, can I be explained the point of this paragraph in the article: "The legal system and notions of justice can thus be maintained even in the face of emerging neuroscientific evidence undermining libertarian intuitions of free will." ?

Mentionning the article I must get back to this paragraph "Hard determinists are forced to accept that individuals often have "free will" in the compatibilist sense, but they deny that this sense of free will can ground moral responsibility. The fact that an agent's choices are unforced, hard determinists claim, does not change the fact that determinism robs the agent of responsibility." The connection between free will and moral responsibility is not because choices are unforced. The point is whether or not choices depend on the threat of punishment. It is a major confusion not to realize that what is "forced" depends on the viewpoint and especially what varies (here it must be threat of punishment/no threat). Warning the reader about this potential confusion is crucial. MikalZiane 21:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Intellectually, I sympathize with some of the tacit and explicit positions you take. For instance, I agree with one of your asides, that responsibility is an abstract notion that's outlines the plausible criteria for being a target of the punishment or praise of a moral agent.

Still, I want to make three comments. First, a sense of agency gives people a greater sense of happiness, even if it were a mere placebo or illusion. So it's not right to say that "it does not matter what caused the decision to break a rule" from a utilitarian perspective. For whatever reason, the idea of having a totally external locus of control is simply a bummer, and so, it matters to us. Second, neither the libertarian nor the hard determinist must deny that there is "goal-achievement", they just deny that there was or wasn't any really genuine or significant choice to do otherwise. Unless one provides further (unobvious) argument, the mere concept of goal-achievement is untouched by a free will discussion. Third, you seem to imply that a utilitarian is absolutely beholden to disregard holding people accountable when it seems unlikely to have an impact, but there are complex issues having to do with integrity and so on that famously need and deserve a utilitarian treatment in order for the doctrine to survive. (I think it can meet these challenges, but I don't think the answers are obvious.) Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 01:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You DO NOT want to get me started on philosophy of language and other matters, do you Lucidish?? If it's not cited, I have the right to revert it. Especially on a Featrured Article. Have you done any, by the way?? --Francesco Franco 15:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Francesco, I wasn't talking to you there. You know that I appreciate your help on PoL, and admire both your skill and independence. But I have not said anything here doubting any reversions. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 15:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Um.....you REALLY don't want to play this game with me. This is going to get quite nasty and probably very, very personal. I don't mind bneing kicked off Wikipedia in fact in order to defend the bulk of what I've done in this article. There WILL be editwars, peronsal attacks and everything I can possibly do to ensure that this thing doesn't return to the shit that was here before. If this is not your wish, you should step out of this dispute now before it is too late. If it is, you WILL BE hurt in the struggle as well, I can assure you.--Francesco Franco 16:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But here is something more frightening

basically, I just commited vandalism to this FA page and there has been no reversion for almost half-an-hour now!! What's the point? This is called monitoring? This is not working, folks. --Francesco Franco 09:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if folks prefer this version, what can I tell you? It's all yours. JESUS CHRIST Wackipedia indeed!! --Francesco Franco 09:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Two points, Franceso. 1) I'm in a very different time zone from you, and it's not likely I will revert anything while I'm sleeping. 2) It is extremely unlikely I would suspect one of your edits as being incorrect or even review them; I will check the edits of contributors I don't know. Please don't use the article to make a point. Sandy 14:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fair about making a point. But a lot of people do this sort of thing to test how effective this project is at reverting vandalism or, worse, slanders of public figures. It is important that people revert quickly.--Francesco Franco 15:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But I'm not a student of philosophy, and I would never suspect that one of your edits might need to be reverted: I wouldn't even review them, since you're the expert. If I see an edit from you on my watchlist, I'm not likely to even check it. Sandy 15:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew that YOU, and most people in the US, were asleep and wouldn't have checked. What I was concerned with is just the general possibility that articles can be easily vandalized. Aren't there general vandal-watchers out there? When my usepage is vandalized it's almost alwyas reverted immediately bu people I don't even know.--Francesco Franco 15:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome is vandalized (coprolalia) regularly: over time, I have managed to get it on numerous people's watchlists, and I have a cadre of vandal-watchers keeping an eye on it. The problem is, the typical vandalism that occurs there is easy to spot, and I suspect that the vandal-watchers (who know that I'm the regular on that article) don't bother to check *my* edits. I don't think having a corp of vandal watchers would help you as it helps me, because this article doesn't typically get coprolalia-type vandalism: you can only rely on the good faith of all of us who have it on our watchlists. Sandy 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent): I have to second Sandy's point here Francesco. As you know, I saw it, and even commented on your personal talk page that if it had been anyone but you, I would have reverted it. What might be a fairer test is to log out, and try it with an IP address, and see how long some anonymous editor, instead of the person who has invested the most time on the page, can get away with the same thing. Or, you can take my response time to your talk page (about 20 minutes) as an outside estimate of what you could expect on a normal day from someone in the same time zone as you, since I hesitated to see what you were doing before posting to your talk page. It's not as bad as you might fear. Edhubbard 15:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had forgotten. Someone did catch it. Well, anyway, I apologize for the unnecessary disturbance, then--Francesco Franco 15:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

"Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain." (Aquinas).

Lacatosias asked me to comment on this nonsense. I assume the problem is random and unbalanced (or worse) edits to previously balanced, and better, articles. I have long since given up on this thing, but, one last time...

Taking one of these random edits: "Free will could be defined (somehow like Hume) as the ability to decide in agreement with one's principles or main goals. Then, moral responsibility could be defined as sensibility to the threat of punishment. Free will (which depends not only on the person but on the decision to make) is then necessary to moral responsibility as well as it requires some kind macroscopic determinism. "

1. 'somehow like Hume' is poor grammar. Reason, 'Free will' is the grammatical subject of the sentence, and so 'like' must refer back to the subject. But the author means something else, something like 'as it was defined by Hume'.

2. I'm not sure Hume defined it in this way at all. At least provide a citation. But in any case, any addition occurring at such a late stage in the article (several sections in) should have already been discussed. When I look at earlier references to what Hume said, they are different. E.g. that "that a person acts freely only when the person willed the act and the person could have done otherwise". No reference to 'principles' or 'main goals'.

3. 'sensibility of' should either be 'sensitivity to' or 'sensibility of'. Which? If the former, it is implying that sensitivity to pain or whatever = moral responsibility. Surely not. Animals are sensitive to punishment (i.e. they feel pain), but are they morally responsible? If the latter, it is implied that the consciousness of punishment = moral responsbility. Not sure why that follows, either of itself or from anything else said in the article.

4. There should surely be a comma after 'as well'?

5. What does the reference to 'macroscopic determinism' mean. I don't like either real salads or word salads.

In short, the real badness of this edit is not philosophical, but just plain inability to write. But why am I complaining? That only makes people think badly of me. Furthermore, whatever effect it achieves, will be undone in a few hours or even minutes, in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Dbuckner 16:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, my first attempt to edit an article was a mistake and was poorly written. I already acknowledged it twice and the edit was removed long ago now. So this is the third time now ;-) I realized that since I am not a native speaker I'd rather stick to the discussion page to suggest editions for some time and at least be more careful. If I was lazy it was partly due to the fact the article is at some places anarchic and thus I had not realized what level of carefullness was necessary.

1. ok

2. I should have been more rigorous ok

3. I was influenced by the French word "sensibilité", so it should have been "sensitivity to", but not to pain, read more carefully please, to the threat of punishment. I explained this in the "State of the article ..." section.

4. indeed

5. The point is that determinism or indeterminsm at the quantic level is irrelevant to moral responsibility and this version of free will, while obviously without some kind of determinism at the macroscopic level, the very idea of trying to achieve goals or to avoid a punishment does not make sense.

MikalZiane 17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

MZ: you've been redundantly chastened by about 4 people here, probably enough to turn most new editors away from WP. Unfortunately, you've chosen an article with a number of disgruntled protectors, who hang around partially to make a point about all the problems with Wikipedia (I am not saying this tongue in cheek). A similar edit on another article might have netted you no commentary whatsoever. The main reason I'm writing is to give a bit of perspective that this sort of thing doesn't happen with most edits, if in fact you haven't edited enough to know that already. –Outriggr § 18:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely right. Such thorough vetting and scrutiny of edits rarely takes place on philosopny articles on Wikipedia. That's why 99.9999999999999% of them are an abomination and everyone knows it. If not, please go take a quick scan throough Dbuckner's user contribuitions for the last week or so. He has identified and tagged so many terrifyingly atrocious philosophy articles that I have really come to deeply resent anyone (even Jerry Fodor or [[Saul Kripke] mush less a non-expert) critizing the half-way decent ones that I have worked on, in particular. Go fix some of the other ones and establish your credentials as a good editor of philosophy articles before whining and throwing out Original Reserach that it simply a silly modificiation of radical behaviorism. --Francesco Franco 07:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean I hang around to make a point about the lack of quality on Wikipedia? Please take another look at my edit count!! LOL. I have over 7,000 edits (nearly 4,000 are main space article edits). As you know, I can take edit for almost entirly writing from scratch 2 of the 6 or 7 FAs in philosophy. The bulk of this one I rescued from FARC oblivion myself. I helped out in the rescue of Omnipotence Paradox. I have had some role in most of the philosophy Featured Articles on Wikipedia. If you look at the GAs, three or four of them (almost all) were subtstanially written by me. I had two others listes, but I REMOVED THEM MYSELF because they don't have in-line citations and are rather techincal. However, I did leave this project for four months back in the summer. My patience is running very thin again, right now. --Francesco Franco 07:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose my first (except for adding two references in a CS article where in fact I saw people sign their editions !) edition will not get me an exceptionnal newcommer award then ?;-) MikalZiane 19:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is, keep trying. :-) –Outriggr § 23:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, all this nonsense seems to have frightened off yet another expert (one of the last 2 or 3 in philosophy) who does not hold some kind of grudge aagaint Wikipedia (BMorton3). I suspect he's just about had it by now. Good work!! Also, I didn't know that EdHubbard or Bmorton had some kind of grudge againts Wikipedia?? All the evidence indicates the contary. Hmmm...What a red herring. --Francesco Franco 07:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

PS you don't need to look at my edits to find these abominations. Just put "Category:Philosophy articles needing attention" in the search box and you get the whole list. I've just put the Philosophy article back on clean-u. Someone removed it under the impression that a nice picture will cure the problem of bad writing. Dbuckner 08:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above FF, the criticisms I made towards this article were not aiming at you. The article is not so good (any more ?) despite yo and because of people (like will you add correclty) who add their "improvements". I realized that and will not edit wihtout much more care now. In the meantime I suggested a few possible opportunites for improvement.MikalZiane 19:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)