It depends on what you mean by "change what's been done". I have often gone back and edited or deleted posts where I made erroneous statements.

Aahhh...interesting. And indeed, we do speak of tornados almost as if they do choose to hit the trailer parks...and not just tornados, of course. My computer has a mind of its own and chooses to make my life miserable at times it chooses of its own free will...my car also decides for itself whether it will start on any given frosty morning. Note what each of these things has in common: we do not know the real reason (this is a subset of what you refer to as the "set of characteristics that can be collectively defined as 'consciousness'". If I might quibble just a tiny bit, I would substitute "labeled" for "defined", but other than that, you are right, I agree with this view.). My mechanic does not think my car has a mind of its own, he thinks it has a bad air filter (or something--I am as close to completely ignorant of the workings of cars as I am...well, of computers). My computer technician knows my computer does not decide such things, rather it is a degraded RAM (or a convoluted defibrillator, or invisible squirrels...all I know is, the tech guy knows what is wrong and demonstrates this by fixing it). The weather guys who chase tornados may not know everything about their quarry, but they know a heck of a lot more about it than I do, and are less likely to see malice aforethought in the destruction of a neighborhood.

When we say we make our own choices out of "free will", it means precisely the same thing: we do not know what the influence was. And, in fact, that is the truth. We do not know all the influences. We do know that every influence we have been able to identify has a common characteristic: they are part of our environment. This is why I compared "free will" to the god of the gaps. In TGOTG, anything we cannot explained is explained simply as "god did it". The Grand Canyon...the vertebrate eye...the strapless evening gown...anything we cannot explain by science is "god's signature"... up until it is easily explained by science, and god gets smaller. (and yes, the strapless evening gown has been written up in a journal...the journal of irreproducible results, evidence that scientists have a sense of humor.)

Something that is unknown is not evidence of god. It is simply unknown, until somebody can come up with a causal mechanism by which god works, and test it. Since definitions of god tend to be unfalsifiable (hmmm, like definitions of free will), unknown things are simply unknown things. A behavior (including decisions, choices, etc.) for which the cause is not immediately known is not evidence of free will. Your coin flip experiments do not allow us to separate free will from randomness. If free will is just random, chaotic events...well, gee. We can have random chaotic events without free will being there. Mr. Occam, your table is ready.You are the locus...Of course it appears to you that the decision was made by you. Parents are proud of their babies, even though the parents are merely the mechanism by which generations of genes come together at a particular locus. You have no control over your genetic makeup at all, nor does your partner have control over that set of genes. You play the hand you are dealt, and no other. The child is beautiful; the parents beam with pride (and understandably), but it is a chance combination of genes, which themselves were inherited via another chance combination (rather than earned, worked for, whatever), and so on over countless generations. The mother's womb is a locus where two genetic histories meet. Your behavior is the locus where the influences of the environment are acting, through you, on the environment. Of course it feels like you are responsible--it is through you that the influences are expressed.

There is good evidence that the environment influences; we can, and do, empirically demonstrate this. As for internal causes...there is, thus far, no way to differentiate this from randomness, no positive theory of free will, no reason to think it exists other than "feelings", and no reason, given experimental evidence, to trust these feelings as being accurate.

*****

That said, it is true that our experience is of making free choices. There is good reason for this illusion, even if it is just an illusion. And there is utility in examining it at that level. We should not deny that people act and feel as if they have free will, and that perception can be very important in understanding people's behavior.

I really have no idea what you are saying here. Are you basing this on an understanding of the mechanics of amplifiers? If it is from some site you have visited that explains how they work, could you link it? Seriously, I don't understand what you are saying here even enough to claim it is wrong or right. For instance...what "third entity"? You have identified a signal and an amplifier, the signal is the first entity, isn't it? Why do you call it the third? And I am genuinely puzzled as to why an external influence (the signal) operating on an object (the amplifier) by known physical processes (I assume they are known, given that people manufacture the things) to produce a predictable output (the signal to the speakers, or whatever), is seen as an analogy to free will? I mean, everything about this example (it seems to me, who knows little about this stuff) is purely mechanical!

anyway...
This is certainly the assumption of advocates of free will (well, the second part, anyway, Gooze points out it kinda depends on what you mean by changing what's been done). I very much disagree. There are ways for the environment to manipulate your behavior for you to feel you freely choose to do exactly what was wanted by the architects of your environment. Certainly, we are rarely in an environment that is planned to influence you (most influence you capriciously), but it does happen. Las Vegas, Reno, Atlantic City, any number of other casinos, are evidence of this. People pay lots of money to go there and leave with less money than they arrived with, thanks to the power of the variable ration schedule of reinforcement. I have worked with people who have voluntarily, even eagerly, handed over thousands of dollars a year (in one case, considerably more than he had to spare) to lotteries, casinos, and now, online gambling. They feel like they freely choose to do this, but they are under the control of a very powerful schedule of reinforcement. We can train rats and pigeons on the same variable-ratio schedule such that they are pressing a lever or pecking a key for food, and then gradually stretch out the schedule such that literally thousands of presses are needed to earn a few grains of food. We can actually coax an animal to work itself to death with this schedule...and make no mistake, its behavior is being controlled. Free Will proponents will point to "you can't know exactly, to the second, when the next press will be", but will ignore the fact that organisms (including people) work harder under this schedule than under any other, and without any aversive consequences or feeling of coercion.

In Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Skinner writes that it is dangerous to think that freedom is a feeling, that a decision is made freely because it was not felt to be coerced. If you focus on the feeling, you will miss the easiest ways to manipulate your behavior. We can just as easily (perhaps more so) ruin your life through positive reinforcement as we can through punishment. You are not free when you are working for something you want, any more than you are free when you are working to avoid something you do not want. But in our society, we are likely to see the first as free choice, and only the last as an attempt to limit our freedom.

If it wasn't for the fact we're conscious, and participated in our lives, we wouldn't even have the inkling of free will. Also, so long as we live in context with our limitations and understand them, we are free to choose within those parameters. And yes, these parameters are typically fashioned (and/or evolve) via external means, and yet these external means are merely an outcropping of what is otherwise an interior motive or, intent. A good example here would be when people interact with each other which, can only be accomplished through external means. However, since the whole thing is perceived and acted upon internally, there's nothing external about it in the least, except in its ultimate outcropping. In which case there's no reason to believe this is not a reflection of how reality works, albeit it's most prevalent with humans ... who, because they are conscious and self-aware, can see how the process works within themselves.

As for the analogy of the amplifier, I'll have to get back to that later, although I would like to say that the amplifier exists expressly for the sake of the signal which, if it didn't exist, there would be no need for the amplifier. Similarly, the same could be suggested with respect to the brain and its relationship with the mind, that it merely evolved to sustain the effects of the mind. In other words the brain evolved around the notion of consciousness which, no doubt must have already existed. The brain being the means by which to channel it.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I see what you are driving at. Taking the car, for example, you may not know precicely what causes it not to start, but it is not random/chaotic, because it happens in strong correlation with cold mornings. Similarly, you may not know what causes people to evaluate softness, but it happens in strong correlation with the order of sampling. I really can't dispute that.
Well, I do fear that this is drifting into a discussion of the nature of consciousness, which, while related, was not my intent. However, these threads do seem to have a will of their own.
I can't dispute this either, except that I don't see free will as a "thing" like God, but rather as a lack of a thing, namely an external controller, and although I can see the space for "free will" getting squeezed, it is, in a way, like my discussion with Iacchy on absolutes. You can approach "absolute lack of free will" (if I may blithely reverse the burdon of proof) but you can never achieve it. Just as you can talk of absolute zero, but not achieve it, you can talk of complete environmental control, but not achieve it.
I love the JIR. One of my favorites was the technical description of a "darkbulb", the opposite of a lightbulb.
Again, the difference is that I don't think of free will as a "thing" but rather as a lack of a "thing". Specifically, the lack of a "thing" in a self-aware entity.

However, I confess, I see my case beginning to unravel. If I may play devils advocate for a moment. I have always argued that the more you know, the more free will you have, because you are aware of more choices. For example, if you are aware of the tricks of salespersons (as I am, thanks to that education I recieved selling encyclopedias), then you have more free will, being more free from their control. If you are aware of the stocking-rubbing results, then you are less likely to fall into the pattern.

But now I see the ugly dark side of that argument. It could be argued that the less you know, the more free_will/lack_of_controllers" you think you have. The plant bending towards the light has more free will than me, because it is cannot think that it is being controlled. The compulsive gambler does not believe he is being controlled. Then of course, there is the addict who knows he is being controlled, but cannot break control. Ugh. This is indeed an enigma.
That was very pretty. (Are you sure you hate poetry?), but you kinda lost me there. It sounds like you are saying everything is genetic, but I'm sure that is not the case. Still, I get your general drift.
I suppose I must agree, reluctantly, although, I still have my fall-back position to argue that I don't say free will exists, only that it's converse cannot be shown to exist. Yeah, I know I'm asking you to prove a negative, meaning I'm in full retreat, but I haven't LOST, dang it!
In my defense, I said from the beginning that I was only defending the existence of the illusion of free will and that it was indistinguishable from free will itself. I am seeing more clearly that it is in fact distinguishable more and more each day.

But let's face it, free will is a concept (like infinity) which, while it may not exist, has utility. It is much less clumsy than saying "I made this decision of my own lack of controlling influence of which I am aware or that have yet been uncovered by experimentation, or by random/chaotic events."

But I acknowledge that I have been out-debated here.

Did I mention how boring you are?

Well, of course, the car chooses to do that. Just as you choose to wear a coat in winter more often than in summer.I don't know, either. Interesting...but I think that is quite a different definition of "free will" than the usual. You are explicitly defining it negatively. You cannot (nor do you) really claim it to be a causal entity, whereas most who speak of free will do. An interesting way of looking at it. If you are defining free will experientially, as you seem to be (it feels free), then we already have a word for it if it is given that free will is simply not knowing what controls you (I will not take that as ceded yet). That word, though, has gotten a bit of a beating around here...it is "ignorance". If we are ignorant of the influences of the environment, we feel we have free will.Sorry, not saying all is genetic. I know you know genetics, so I was using it as an analogy. The behavior you give birth to is the result of many environmental influences coming together, using you as the locus of intersection, or womb, if you will.I think the definition you use of free will is considerably more defensible than the usual one...agreed wholeheartedly.agreed wholehear...er, I mean...It is so nice to have an actual debate here, with give and take and listening...so shall the next one be on the myth of plate techtonics? Actually, you praised my poetic turn of phrase, and at one point might have allowed as you want to bear my children, but the word "boring"? Only a couple of dozen times...

Okay, point taken. I know why I behave differently in the cold. I hate the cold, or more specifically, cold affects my nervous system in uncomfortable ways. Yet, I may occasionally choose to suffer that discomfort for reasons... that I can't really explain. Stubbornness? I don't know why the car won't start in the cold, but others (like a mechanic) may know. I know that material behavior varies with the weather, so it should not be surprising that car behavior does too. I just don't know the specifics. Many people, in their ignorance of car mechanics, have resorted to treating the car like a conscious entity which is trying to harass them, or they may say the car is under control of some other conscious entity, (usually Satan). I even know cases of people kicking or even destroying their cars because of their erratic behavior. Free will doesn't come without a price.

But I digress.Hard to say. If I say "I make my own decisions", is that a positive definition?
If I say "nobody else makes my decisions", is that a negative definition? What is the difference in those statements?

Or is the truth really that there is no such thing as a "decision", but only a reaction? I could (now) argue that point, but I would hate to do so. I'm very proud of my decisions. Please don't convince me they weren't real decisions.
Agreed. But it raises the question, does decreasing your ignorance of the influences of your environment give you a greater "illusion of free will" or less? Is the ultimate in knowledge to be a determinist? Call it stubbornness if you will, but I simply refuse to accept that.
Yeah, but the womb is only one of many loci, albiet (to use one of Iacchy's favorite words) an important one. But go with that poetry, Diggy! You are much less boring when you do.
Thank you sir. Too bad I had to put it through such contortions to make it defensible.
Yeah, it would be nice to play in my own ballpark for a change. I knew when I started this discussion that I was ignorant. That point was hammered home. But I'm glad if you enjoyed it. Truthfully, I did too. I am always eager to look at things in different ways. I may borrow a few of your points when I discuss this with others. Unless they're copyrighted, that is.
I'm sure I could bear your children. Send 'em over. I can stand anything for a little while.
Well, I'd call you "ignorant", but that would be tougher to prove.

Well, let me think about that.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Yes. An incomplete one, because you do not suggest a mechanism, but we will let that slide.Yes, that is a negative definition--you are defining your behavior in terms of what it is not (a decision by others). Note that you have not, in this second one, claimed that you do make the decisions; you deny others do, but you do not deny, say, randomness, or that the decisions themselves are actually illusory. Negative definitions are rather tough on science (note the problems in ESP research--to prove it was ESP, you have to prove that it was not normal sensory processes, and that is difficult. I mean, with sight, you do not have to demonstrate that it was not hearing, because we have a positive definition of sight. ESP? What is its mechanism? What is its description? None are forthcoming, and so the state of the science is shaky, defined as it is by the absence of something we do know about. In fact, saying something is "the result of ESP" is absolutely identical, with a negative definition, as saying that it is "the result of I-don't-know-what". Chance events happen, and with a negative definition, there is no way to determine if something is ESP or chance.Incredibly easy--you just have to choose the right topic. I try not to give hints about what topics those are...if I opened my trap on those topics, you would know in a moment I am ignorant.

Perhaps they are illusory, as I have already admitted, but if the illusion comes from me, not an outside source, then it is still "my" illusory decisions. If the randomness or chaos is in my own system, then I own it.

But then, if the randomness comes from a cosmic ray interfering with my neurologic process, then... (grapple grapple.)
I suppose that is why statistics are so important. You might not be able to distinguish a single "ESP" event from chance, but you possibly could with numerous ones. Of course, you would first have to establish a baseline of what would be expected by chance, and that is a non-trivial task. Still, this is the exact nature of what scientists who debunk the paranormal do. It is a lot of work just to keep people from believing BS, and pretty thankless, considering that lots of them are going to believe the BS anyway, because they bear resentment towards science and refuse to study how it works. (Looks askance at Iacchus).

heh, heh.Actually, with a negative definition, all you would have established this way would be that "some unknown effect" was there. For instance...if you predicted the outcome of 100 coin flips in a row, we would know it was highly, highly unlikely to be chance. But was it A)chance anyway, B)precognitively seeing the outcome before it happened, C)psychokinetically influencing the outcome, D)your future self coming back in time to tell your present self the answers, E)telekinetically influencing the experimenter to put down 100 successes no matter what your results actually were, F)all of the above, G)something else entirely....I am sure, with your imagination, you could come up with a longer list.Agreed.

No, "if" (hypothetically speaking that is ), I bear resentment towards anyone, it would be the un-insightful folks who claim it doesn't exist. And that only because they continue to waste my time insisting that there's no grounds to support it. While even at that rate "if" (again, hypothetically speaking ) this is so, I'm not going to let it ruin my day, I can assure you.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

It's ok to mention names, Iacchus.

When I make a claim, I support it. When I speak of my view of consciousness, I go into detail about known and verifiable sensory and perceptual processes. I do not think it is too much to ask that level of evidence, for a question of this importance. IF you are happy believing, in the absence of evidence, I expect your day will not be ruined. When you wish to attack my views, please bring evidence. If I am wrong, I will thank you for showing me.

What's more important? Knowledge of the experience? Or, knowledge derived from the experience? Oh, and let's not forget there would be no empirical data if, there was no experience (through the faculty of consciousness) which allows us to examine it.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Hmmm.... I wonder who that might be. Like Diggy says, you can address me directly if you like. I'm not terribly shy.
Believe me, I'm not trying to ruin your day. Nor am I trying to waste your time. My time is precious too. If I choose to post on these boards, you must acknowledge that I am spending some of my very limited lifetime in doing so, since I don't believe in an afterlife. I would not do so if I thought it were a waste of time.

I would suppose it depends on the experience. Why should one or the other always be more important? Oh, and let's not forget there would be no empirical data if there was no experience (through the faculty of the senses) which allows us to examine it.

(We know we have senses. We infer "consciousness" circularly; it is not a faculty. Did you ever read that link on circularity?)

Well, it's pretty much a matter of the chicken before the egg thing now isn't it? And yes, consciousness is a faculty.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Evidence please.

And did you read that link on circularity?

There is the possibility of the ability of being able to describe the universe with a GUT (Grand Unified Theory), which I'm sure you have heard. This is the mother of all theories and it may as well predict your coinflips. However, due to science's inability so far to predict human behavior as Isaac Asimov's "Foundation's Edge" does, free will is not ruled out by science.

A) The inability to know both the velocity and position at the same time of a particle due to the Uncertainty Principle promotes that answer a bit.

B) Data transfer from the future to the past may be possible, though it would require a 4 dimensional enlargement which may disturb it in some way and either render it useless or some of it might be lost, that is assuming it doesn't get sent to a parallel universe. This is also a paradox since the information came out of nowhere.

C) It may be possible. Brain waves may exceed the brain which is according to Fox Mulder "Psychic Plasma"

D) Grandfather paradox, Information out of nowhere paradox.

E) You don't need to be psychic for that. You just need to be Bill Gate's son.