Hard determinists, broadly speaking, state that our will is not free because it is fully determined by prior causes.

Entertaining the premise, is there anything on this view which is accurately described as free? Are we mistaken to speak of "free speech" as our speech is fully determined by prior causes? Are we mistaken to speak of a "freely rotating axle" as the movement of the axle is fully determined by prior causes?

does it matter if we define free as an adjective or an adverb?

The primary definitions in the OED seem similar either way:

I looked at M-W and the distinction seems like it may be important

Adjective: Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
Adverb: Without cost or payment:

If we translate without cost as freedom from sanction then it seems free speech may exist even in a highly determined state.

I'm not qualified to answer any more and I don't want to derail a thread before it's started so soz.

Well... "speech" is a noun, so the "free" in "free speech" is an adjective, not an adverb (I think). That aside, I agree that free speech is meaningfully free, but that's probably because I'm not a hard determinist.

Dereds is probably touching on the gist of it. In a fully deterministic system, free would merely mean "currently beyond prediction". Than an axle is "rotating freely" would merely be an illusion caused by lack of knowledge.

You can't ask for the amount of freedom in a deterministic system, when using a non-deterministic definition of free - this would just be a category mistake.

Why should we entertain the notion of defining "freedom" in such a way that nothing has ever had or will have it though? I often hear - from both flavours of incompatibilists - variations of "What you [compatiblists] are talking about is not what people mean by 'free will'". I get why certain theologians need to define free will as contrary to determinism, but I don't understand why certain hard determinists (thinking of Harris and Jerry Coyne particularly) are so vehemently opposed to any attempt to make free will 1) coherent and 2) in keeping with every other normal definition of "free", particular given that they generally acknowledge that the difference of position is a semantic rather than metaphysical issue

Of course there is free will. How can it be pre-determined if you decide what to have for dinner on the toss of a coin ? That's just an example of the random choices we can make according to our free will every day.

PSA: engaging with cretins in my thread will result in people being added to my Ignore list.

Oh dear you're threatening all the other posters now. They are free to respond if they like. There's another example of free will despite your attempt to pre-determine their behaviour lol. Just answer the points raised.


PS Please don't use the word cr*t*n* as it is offensive. Only numpties do that as it is a medical condition.

* "A person deformed and mentally handicapped due to a congenital thyroid deficiency."

Asking why hard determinists think something or why we should agree with them, has very little to do with asking what they think. Your OP was (as far as I could tell) about what hard determinists think, not why think they it or if they could be wrong.

Was this a misinterpretation?

Well, I thought the question of "why" was at least somewhat signposted in my OP so, given the clarification since then, we can move on to the other questions.

Why did you post this in here ? It's got nothing to do with religion god or theology. You should have posted it in SMP or trivia or somewhere like that. Determinists beg the question. If you say EVERYTHING has a prior cause then of course there cannot be free will as they have left no room for it in their definition. However in the real world there is free will. I can have fish for my dinner or chicken and I am free to choose which.

As well as defining free, we might also have to define will, otherwise we end up with another category error, i think.

does a computer have free will?

I actually just read Harris 'free will' last week. Will maybe read some dennett to get an opposing view before I try to clarify my own thoughts on the matter and comment further

Not really it's just bits of plastic and stuff.

Why does that stop a computer having free will? Humans are also just bits of stuff, the same stuff as makes up a computer, but Im guessing you believe humans have free will?

What is it that gives humans free will, but not computers?

edit: oh, nvm

To help speed this along, I think the hard determinist can take a couple different responses to my "free speech" example:

1) Appeal to history/consensus of the incompatibilist definition of "free will" as a reason to preserve that definition as primary, despite the incompatibilist definition of "free" being idiosyncratic.
2) Bite the bullet and argue that words like "free", "choose", "could" and "can" are meaningless and should be expunged.

3) accept that there is the "Illusion of free will" ?

I would go for 2 if pressed I guess.

Zumby, what do you think gives a human free will, that a computer doesnt possess?

Because a computer ain't alive ! I dunno about free will but we do have free choices which we exercise in a fairly random fashion. Now what shall I have for dinner; chicken or fish ?

Granting you a temporary reprieve as this is an interesting question...

Really it's just that some sort of conscious introspection is implicitly required in the definition of "will". I presume a sufficiently advanced computer/robot would be able to exercise* free will, much the same as I presume that Koko the gorilla is, at least some of the time, able to exercise free will.

* Probably also should clarify that, on my view, free will is not just an intrinsic Boolean property of a person but a description of a subset of decision-making processes. It's a willed action if my consciousness played a part in the causal chain e.g. action/decisions made purely by the autonomous nervous system aren't "willed" actions. It's a freely willed action if no-one had a gun to my head.

In the "freely rotating axis" example, I'm fairly sure free is being used with a slightly modified and more technical meaning like in the term "degrees of freedom". It describes the possibility of a certain kind of motion

I used the ignore function for the first time and it felt great.
Thanks Zumby for starting a thread with content!

Yep. But what does "possibility" mean in a deterministic universe?