Talk:Free will

Draft for new introduction

Have at it.

---

Physical determinism taxonomy

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

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

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

Including a position not held by anyone and not supported by a reference is hardly going to help anyone understand ----Snowded ^TALK 14:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this Snowded. Hard incompatibilism is discussed in the introduction and there is a section on free will#Hard incompatibilism. A position needn't be held by academics to be discussed in the literature. Including all logical positions is precisely what helps people understand a concept (not including logical positions is what makes things confusing for people). I understand that there are cases where the literature has confounded two concepts, which makes it difficult for an encyclopedia to explain them (express all logical positions); but this does not appear to be the case here.

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree - and you have to have a reference to include material. To put in something based on what you call logic is original research or synthesis ----Snowded ^TALK 05:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the references that were added to the taxonomy (note you first described it as a logical position in your original reversion). Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll take another look but they will have to be very convincing for me to agree - that diagram is misleading in its implications ----Snowded ^TALK 05:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick scan and I can't see that any of the sources summarise in a form that supports the table other than through synthesis - if I am missing something here please point me to it. I'll happily read through in more detail tomorrow but for the moment I need to get to work ----Snowded ^TALK 05:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

For correctness, I am currently considering changing the caption to; "A simplified taxonomy of philosophical positions regarding free will and determinism. Positions should be considered in the following order; 1. compatibilism, 2. libertarianism, 3. hard incompatibilism, and 4. hard determinism."

NB This translates to; 1. "If determinism is true and free will is possible, then Compatibilism", 2. "If determinism is false and free will is possible, then Libertarianism", 3. "If determinism is false and free will is impossible, then Hard Incompatibilism", (else) 4. "If determinism is true and free will is impossible, then Hard Determinism".

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you got a source which directly supports that taxonomy? As far as I can see it is a synthesis/interpretation of the sources you give and it is misleading as such in terms of the weight it gives to approaches aside from the general synthesis issue. FAD insertion in a modified form is not agreed until we have a consensus here ----Snowded ^TALK 06:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I presume that this diagram was added to Wikipedia in the interests of providing the readers with a better understanding of the concepts (I doubt the author who first developed it was engaging in synthesis). I am interested to know people's opinion on the description I have recommended be added to the caption. I believe it negates any claims of being "misleading in its implications". Perhaps people can find a reference to contradict it? Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Two by twos tend to over simplify and also to give equal status to each quadrant. It is synthesis but if enough editors agree it might be allowed. But I don't take the argument that it has to be disproved. A three way diagram might be more interesting but again I am not sure why this is needed It also emphases a dichotomy between the physical and the mental which directly contradicts post-cartesian models of consciousness which give radical new solutions to the free will problem. So the representation perpetuates a distinction that in turn leads to a problem. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reasoning Snowded.

Oversimplification: I think we should give the readers the benefit of the doubt in desiring clarification of the text rather than simple pictorial explanations of the problem. There may however be other ways to visualise the material, and this has been discussed in the past.

Equal status: I don't think we should assume that readers infer equal status from 2x2 matrices. Despite this, equal status is difficult to quantify in this context. I think we should be emphasising the philosophical positions discussed by contemporary philosophers rather than those held by contemporary philosophers - in which case the presentation of all logical positions is preferred. Moreover, their status in academia is dependent on the status of contemporary physics (it is not static).

Synthesis: The diagram is not a synthesis as defined by Wikipedia:SYNTH

Editing: I don't think this is a question of allowing rather than preferencing. I think we should be finding the best possible material for this article.

Criticism: I am not arguing that the diagram has to be disproved. I am suggesting that if it can't be contradicted, then it probably is a good diagram.

Three way diagram: I think it is important to ask, which position would be culled and on what basis? "In recent times, hard determinism has fallen out of fashion, largely because our best sciences suggest that determinism is probably false. But the spirit of the hard determinist position is sustained by hard incompatibilists, who hold that there is no free will if determinism is true, but also, that there is no free will if determinism is false". Before 2010, the diagram was 3 way. Hard incompatibilism was added to the diagram. One could even argue that hard incompatibilism is underemphasised in the diagram (the diagram is giving respect to historical positions over their contemporary superordinate classification).

Post-cartesian models of consciousness: Can you please explain what you mean here? I am not sure how the taxonomy emphasises a dichotomy between the physical and the mental. All non-cartesian formulations of metaphysical libertarianism are covered by the diagram.

My recommendations: It is possible that the diagram belongs in section "In Western Philosophy" instead of the lead. However, I think it is the most appropriate diagram we have for the lead at present. This is a philosophical (not a theological) article, and we should be catering for readers interested in philosophy. I am interested to know what Pfhorrest thinks on these issues (including the caption update); he also has a background in organising this content.

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well per the above I think it can be proved to be incomplete, the possible/impossible distinction and the emphasis on physical in one dimension would require us too have a massive circle in the middle to handle novelty receptive v autonomic processing for example. It's a model stuck in a specific tradition in a specific past. At the most a historical note in Western Philosophy not the lede. Always interested in Pfhorrest thoughts. But, it is a crude and simplistic taxonomy that does not cover all the options ....----Snowded ^TALK 05:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Note I can't comprehend the argument here Snowded - it appears to be critiquing the literature. You are happy with a textual description of the free will classification scheme discussed in the philosophical literature, but not a visualisation of it? Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well as far as I can see the literature does not cover one of the options in the taxonomy. Also as I said it is stuck in the past, hence my reference above to post-Cartesian concepts of consciousness which change the free will debate. Any diagram created by editors is a form of critique or synthesises material by the way. The diagram you give below is better than the two by two but still suffers from the points raised. We need other comments really to progress this ----Snowded ^TALK 04:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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

I believe that the new diagram is suitable for the western philosophy section (although it is too complicated for the introduction):

[as discussed] it a) covers all logical positions on the topic, b) using the primary method of classification discussed in philosophical literature (compatibilism/incompatibilism).

For reference (although irrelevant), the primary classification scheme for free will (compatibilism/incompatibilism) maps to lay intuitions regarding free will.

[as discussed] Diagrams are not Synthesis as defined by wikipedia (assuming the positions discussed are sourced together).

[as discussed] The positions illustrated are sourced in an academic encyclopedia, see; "Compatibilism's Competitors". I have quoted from this paragraph above.

[as discussed] The positions illustrated are already discussed in the introduction (and have been for a long time).

The new diagram addresses the ambiguity present in the simpler layout [discussed].

The historical classification scheme is independent of cartesian conceptions of consciousness/philosophy of mind (it only concerns physical determinism).

[as discussed] The criteria for encyclopedic material is its coverage of views discussed in the literature (not its coverage of views held by academics).

It is not clear that the classification scheme discussed in the philosophical literature is outdated ('stuck in the past'); physical determinism is not an issue that has been definitively resolved at present (although the evidence suggests that we live in an indeterministic universe).

If there are any other points raised that the new diagram suffers from please repeat them; thanks.

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Placing a diagram such as this in a section not the lede makes sense, but if so the title needs to indicate its relevance to a series of debates even within the western tradition. Maybe "A perspective on debates" or similar would do it ----Snowded ^TALK 08:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia free will criticism

Wikipedia seems to follow Vatican's esoteric guidelines which say roughly that "the populace should believe «free will is simple and there are no arguments against it»." Note what happened to the article Dilemma of determinism (and there is at present a Proposed Deletion discussion). I believe it's got something to do with politics (& money, because Wikipedia is private whereas it speaks in a very coordinated manner on this aspect). The Catholic church, unlike many Protestant churches (sola fide), lives from sins, wants that man be considered guilty and almost the whole religious life of a Catholic is about sinning, penance and absolution. Turrp (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Speak for yourself ----Snowded ^TALK 19:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Aristotle incompatibilism reference

I added the following citation required tag to the Aristotle incompatibilism association. I am not claiming this is a false association, I am merely requesting a citation.

As far as we know, this problem was first suggested by Aristotle in the fourth century B.C.E., but it is still a major focus of philosophical debate.

Reason: the Susanne Bobzien reference "Did Epicurus Discover the Free-Will Problem?" appears to argue against this. See also Susanne Bobzien#Determinism and freedom and "Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy"; "...Aristotle and Epictetus: In the latter authors it was the fact that nothing hindered us from doing or choosing something that made us have control over them. In Alexander's account, the terms are understood differently: what makes us have control over things is the fact that we are causally undetermined in our decision and thus can freely decide between doing/choosing or not doing/choosing them".

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Dilemma of determinism?

There used to be such high quality article on the topic, distinguished as a separate term and argument by many philosophers and scholars. There's an ongoing discussion as to whether delete it (with no good reason except "protection of some forms of religion") or no. See Dilemma of determinism, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilemma of determinism (2nd nomination)#Dilemma of determinism. It deserves more vote but Snowded supported by admins insisted on not including the article in its natural categories (8-9 categories or so) so it's almost unattended voting and, as far as I know, people on Philosophy group such as Brewsohare were banned for incorrect edits and view, so it's rather very biased. At present, if the article be deleted, no rationalist arguments are mentioned in Free will which would undermine the term, even though such arguments exist and are independent from determinism/indeterminism. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilemma of determinism (2nd nomination)#Dilemma of determinism. 78.146.121.60 (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)