Free Will Revisited

[Grames]

So perhaps modern Americans are the beneficiaries of historic Western individuals who successfully prevailed against conservatism, though one should wonder why the East has no similar story. But now I wonder, what made these individuals into independent-thinkers. The Objectivist will answer, free will.

How did they get free will?

They were born with it. It’s in their identity.

So they didn’t choose to be independent—that’s just their identity, it’s how they were born?

No, no. They were born with free will, they were tabula rasa, and from this state some people chose to be great.

That’s a hard theory to understand. We’re all born with the exact same free will, we’re all tabula rasa, and yet some choose to be good while others bad. How can the exact same identity come to two different conclusions except by indeterminacy? And if it is a matter of indeterminacy, how can one be blamed or praised for the outcome?

I suppose that the proponent of free will could deny that we do not all have the same free will, though I’m not sure what that would mean. Some of us are born with a different will? Again, how can we be praised or blamed for this? We’re not all tabula rasa? Sounds like nature or nurture determines who we are in this case.

If, as the Objectivist says, free will is merely the identity of man in action—from whence does this identity spring? Is it given to us at birth? Then it is not our fault. If it is created by us, then we create our own identity, and you’re now espousing existentialism.

Existence exists.

Existence is identity.

Consciousness is identification.

Consciousness has identity, therefore identification is finite and fallible.

Volition is choosing when identification is complete (should be stopped), incomplete (should be continued), or less important than some new issue (should be neglected). In other words, volition directs consciousness' finite resources of time and attention.

To accept volition is merely to aknowledge that such resource allocation decisions get made, and that the alternatives were real and could have been selected instead.

In order to form a new concept, a man must be able to perceive the referents. Thus the context of a man's life, his time, place, the language he has available to him limits or makes possible the formation of certain ideas. It is no coincidence that Darwin was a well travelled naturalist when he put his theory of evolution to paper, the British navy and the scientific intellectual climate of Great Britian made a Darwin possible. Nor is it a coincidence that Ayn Rand, a classically educated fugitive from Bolshevik Russia who went almost straight to Hollywood thus witnessing widely divergent philosophical abstractions reduced to practice, was able to make new philosophical insights.

It was not others with similar experiences but Darwin and Rand who came up with new ideas, and popularized them. They each had decided to fully explore certain issues that had presented themselves when so many others had not. These two are fine examples of how volition and circumstances together determine the course of a person's life.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Grames

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

It was not others with similar experiences but Darwin and Rand who came up with new ideas, and popularized them. They each had decided to fully explore certain issues that had presented themselves when so many others had not. These two are fine examples of how volition and circumstances together determine the course of a person's life.

Right, they chose to think about what was available to them in their own capacity.

But one can certainly say that the West has a culture that encourages independent thinking and rewards it; whereas in the East and in the Middle East, such independent thinking is discouraged even to the point of threatening or killing the independent thinker. And let's keep in mind that the West (Western Culture) is derived from the greatest thinkers in history, the Ancient Greeks -- especially Aristotle. The far East never had an Aristotle to build on, and the Middle East once did acknowledge Aristotle as great, but rejected him ideologically.

Free will -- the freedom to think or not to think -- is involved every step of the way. However, some cultures actively punish the thinker, and so they never develop a great base on which to build. Even the West -- Ancient Greece -- killed Socrates, but there was a backlash against this and the independent thinker was free to prosper, thus leading to Plato and then to Aristotle.

But if one is going to have the attitude that free will is not involved and that those independent thinkers did not choose to think, then it is going to be a complete mystery as to why some cultures encourage Aristotle and some reject him.

Also, due to free will, a man's character, what he chooses to focus on and to think about and to act on, is up to him individually. A man's soul is self-made. In that sense, his identity is self-chosen; because he is in control of his consciousness, from which character arises.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[aleph_0]

In other words, you are expecting us to stay within the parameters of your debate terms, to focus on what you wrote, and to consider that outside of direct evidence to the contrary; all of which would require free will, otherwise, we would be like a train on a track that cannot chose to take a right turn if there is no track.

Of course, Objectivism acknowledges free will in man, including the free will to avoid facts, which is called evasion. You can freely choose to go along with the facts of reality or you can freely choose to ignore them. You are freely choosing to ignore them.

I am expecting a conversation on the topic I have brought up, and not another, yes. I recognized that people here will find it relevant to argue other tangential points, and I would be more than willing to address those in another topic. In fact, because of your obvious passion for this particular argument, I will do you the favor of looking to see if there is another topic which addresses it. If there isn’t, I’ll begin one. You’re welcome. However, I did wish to discuss a particular idea when I began this topic, and I do not want to be distracted by a different topic which I have already considered and then rejected long ago.

Not only is there no fact which I have evaded—I have even offered, right from the beginning, to create a whole topic addressed to the fact which you claim I am evading. Your slander is beneath plausible, to the level of absurd. The fact that more than a few posters on this site have seemed to find need to lob accusations rather than addressing the topic at hand makes you all look paranoid, as if you think that I’m hatching an evil plan to undermine the human mind. That, or you perceive that you have no other means of successfully arguing against me; but at least for your own sake, you should remember that argument from intimidation is invalid.

And now I find it necessary to remind you and others of the following rules for this forum:

“Courtesy

“Participants agree not use this forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of U.S. law.

“No personal attacks

“Healthy debate is encouraged, but participants agree not resort to personal attacks, and do not belittle someone else's argument. Instead of making it personal, participants agree to use rational, persuasive skills to make a point or criticize another’s.

“Keeping threads on topic

“Participants agree to make posts on topic, discussing relevant issues at hand. If a participant wants to start a discussion in a different direction, simply begin a new thread.” (Italics mine)

So not only do the obviously unjustified accusations of evasion violate the rule for courtesy, but the personal insults violate the rule against personal attacks. Moreover, if you wish to talk about the idea that one must acknowledge free will in order to criticize, punish, suggest, or command others, “simply begin a new thread.”

aleph0:

You say you reject that free will is axiomatic. I would like to work on this if you don't mind.

First, does this mean that you reject that we possess free will? Or are you leaving that question open and just saying that you reject its axiomatic nature?

Do you agree that the senses are valid and that you sense and observe that you possess free will?

This is an important question. Let us first agree that we possess free will and then we can move on to its validation and then to the demonstration of its axiomatic nature.

Marc, I’m not sure whether we have free will. Yes, I reject that knowledge of free will is an axiom. I do agree that the senses are valid, that one must believe in the senses, and that existence and consciousness are axioms. I do not sense or observe my own free will.

Existence is identity.

I’ll agree with this, if construed narrowly.

Consciousness is identification.

I find this highly controvertible.

Consciousness has identity, therefore identification is finite and fallible.

I don’t believe that identity completely denies infinity, though I agree they’re related. Also, the meaning of “consciousness [is] fallible” needs to be clarified. But again, I’ll agree if construed narrowly.

To accept volition is merely to aknowledge that such resource allocation decisions get made, and that the alternatives were real and could have been selected instead.

This is somewhat tautological unless you define “decisions” in a somewhat unorthodox way. I take volition to be something that is only the product of one’s self (where “self” refers to the mind), and that its effects cannot be necessitated exclusively by outside conditions. The effects in question may be, as you say, resource allocation. All the same, I am not convinced that such allocations are made, in part, independent of material conditions.

In order to form a new concept, a man must be able to perceive the referents. Thus the context of a man's life, his time, place, the language he has available to him limits or makes possible the formation of certain ideas. It is no coincidence that Darwin was a well travelled naturalist when he put his theory of evolution to paper, the British navy and the scientific intellectual climate of Great Britian made a Darwin possible. Nor is it a coincidence that Ayn Rand, a classically educated fugitive from Bolshevik Russia who went almost straight to Hollywood thus witnessing widely divergent philosophical abstractions reduced to practice, was able to make new philosophical insights.

It was not others with similar experiences but Darwin and Rand who came up with new ideas, and popularized them. They each had decided to fully explore certain issues that had presented themselves when so many others had not. These two are fine examples of how volition and circumstances together determine the course of a person's life.

Fair enough. Still, what about that which made them form new ideas? Was it their nature and identity? How did they get their nature and identity? Was it present in their creation, in-born—or did they somehow create their own identity? How do you create your identity before you have an identity? That’s existentialism.

Also, due to free will, a man's character, what he chooses to focus on and to think about and to act on, is up to him individually. A man's soul is self-made. In that sense, his identity is self-chosen; because he is in control of his consciousness, from which character arises.

Ah-ha!

[Seeker]

I am expecting a conversation on the topic I have brought up, and not another, yes.

Still? I explained to you that the topic as given presupposes the denial that free will is axiomatic, contrary to Objectivism. Indeed, you yourself acknowledge this point, which is why this in the debate forum and why the conversation will invariably return to getting you to revisit your incorrect premise rather than proceeding with the topic as you have tried to frame it. This is especially true because one must deny an axiom in order to engage the topic as given. No rational conversation could possibly proceed on that basis.

If you accept that free will is an axiom you won't begin to consider arguments for or against its reality, and the conversation is over before it begins.

Agreed.

I have, like I said, mentioned reasons why someone might want to consider these ideas even if he is coming from the belief that free will is an axiom.

I think that you were right the first time and wrong the second, but let's examine these aforementioned reasons just to make sure:

In any case, even if you take free will to be axiomatic, there are two reasons why one would find this conversation still constructive. First, you may find out about the nature of your free will; second, you may find out that the free will thesis is internally inconsistent, and need to revise either your beliefs about free will or the argument which purports to show that it's inconsistent.

"First, you may find out about the nature of your free will"

This, I contend, is not correct. The whole conversation is predicated on denying the self-evident fact of free will, which (as you acknowledge) is one of my starting points. A conversation cannot serve to illuminate the nature of that which it denies at the outset. At best, your argument could only try to show that the nature of man's will is that it is unfree; this, of course, it cannot do.

"... second, you may find out that the free will thesis is internally inconsistent, and need to revise either your beliefs about free will or the argument which purports to show that it's inconsistent."

As I pointed out, you have not shown that it is internally inconsistent; your response was: "I have not tried." Well, if you aren't going to try, then it is disingenuous to assert that "you may find out that the free will thesis is internally inconsistent." In fact, as you admit, it would be futile to try, because free will is axiomatic. As to revising the argument that purports to show that it's inconsistent, this too would be a fool's errand, because free will is axiomatic.

if you reject these as well, we have no more to say to each other.

I agree that we have nothing more to say on the topic as you have tried to frame it. However, since you refuse to accept that the actual topic is your refusal to accept self-evident facts, I am choosing to reiterate why your statement that "I am expecting a conversation on the topic I have brought up, and not another, yes" is not reasonable.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Seeker

[aleph_0]

I explained to you that the topic as given presupposes the denial that free will is axiomatic, contrary to Objectivism. Indeed, you yourself acknowledge this point, which is why this in the debate forum and why the conversation will invariably return to getting you to revisit your incorrect premise rather than proceeding with the topic as you have tried to frame it.

You'll note that I have completely understood this. In fact, I was the one who pointed this out. And so what I do not understand is why you are posting here.

"First, you may find out about the nature of your free will"

This, I contend, is not correct. The whole conversation is predicated on denying the self-evident fact of free will, which (as you acknowledge) is one of my starting points.

Remember that I do not deny free will. I deny that it is self-evident. If you will remember the actual topic, it argues a disjunction: Either there is no free will, or it is existentialist in nature.

"... second, you may find out that the free will thesis is internally inconsistent, and need to revise either your beliefs about free will or the argument which purports to show that it's inconsistent."

As I pointed out, you have not shown that it is internally inconsistent; your response was: "I have not tried."

See above.

In the end, as I have also said before, if you reject these reasons, then you will indeed find the whole topic useless, and you are more than welcome to excuse yourself.

However, since you refuse to accept that the actual topic is your refusal to accept self-evident facts, I am choosing to reiterate why your statement that "I am expecting a conversation on the topic I have brought up, and not another, yes" is not reasonable.

How can that be the topic, when the topic I wrote was not that? The topic is what I wrote about.

[brian0918]

I think it is time for aleph_0 to explain what he means by "free will", because I believe he is assigning more (supernatural) power to it than there really is.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Not only is there no fact which I have evaded—I have even offered, right from the beginning, to create a whole topic addressed to the fact which you claim I am evading. Your slander is beneath plausible, to the level of absurd. The fact that more than a few posters on this site have seemed to find need to lob accusations rather than addressing the topic at hand makes you all look paranoid, as if you think that I’m hatching an evil plan to undermine the human mind. That, or you perceive that you have no other means of successfully arguing against me; but at least for your own sake, you should remember that argument from intimidation is invalid.

I wasn't trying to be impolite or discourteous -- I'm simply pointing out that the fact of your free will is self-evident, and that if you continue to ignore it, then you are being evasive.

If we were having a conversation about whether or not this post exists, and you read it and then claim to me that it doesn't exist as a reply, then you are being evasive.

You expect me to change my ways, but by what means? How am I supposed to do that without having free will? There is a corollary to your position, that the denial of free will leads to those who want to change others to resort to force instead of persuasion. In other words, if people do not have free will and do not create their own character or have any control over it, then the logical conclusion is that they ought to be treated like dogs when trying to get them to change their ways. Marxism and communism are good examples of that approach. They, too, consider the mind to not exist and that man does not have free will, so if people break an infraction, they need to be treated like animals in training.

You have control over how you reply to this post; if you claim that you don't, you are fooling yourself. Just introspect about what you are going to write back, and you will see that you chose to write the previous post and that you chose to write a reply to this post.

If you don't have control, then please stop wasting our time with your uncontrollable outbursts.

[EC]

...because I believe he is assigning more (supernatural) power to it than there really is.

What? There is absolutely NO "supernatural power" to free will. Nada.

[Seeker]

How can that be the topic, when the topic I wrote was not that? The topic is what I wrote about.

If you write a topic that says "existence does not exist, let us discuss the ways...", and others point out to you how existence is self-evident, and you continue to deny this then the topic is going to be your denial of the self-evident no matter how much you insist otherwise. Similarly, if you write a topic that denies that free will is self-evident in order to discuss a cultural determinism thesis, and others point out to you how volition is self-evident, and you continue to deny this then the topic is going to be your denial of the self-evident no matter how much you insist otherwise.

And so what I do not understand is why you are posting here. ...

As you tried to change the subject by invoking forum rules, I chose to point out that such invocation is unreasonable, and why.

Remember that I do not deny free will. I deny that it is self-evident.

If you deny that free will is self-evident, then you are denying free will or you don't know what free will is. I would suggest the latter, and that the proper course of action would be to ask typical, non-debate questions along of lines of "here is what I think free will is, in what ways am I wrong?" so that the good people of this forum can get on with the business of providing you answers to the benefit of your understanding rather than dallying around a non-discussable topic.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Seeker

[aleph_0]

I think it is time for aleph_0 to explain what he means by "free will", because I believe he is assigning more (supernatural) power to it than there really is.

Fair enough. Free will--if it exists--is that power in individuals which allows them to do one thing or another, free of antecedent necessity. Any choice "might have been otherwise". It is not caused by anything, but is an original agent of causation. Thus its identity is not necessitated, and thus is not created, by any antecedent. At best, its identity is self-created. It comes into being by the very act of willing itself into being--by the act of willing itself to have such-and-such an identity.

I wasn't trying to be impolite or discourteous -- I'm simply pointing out that the fact of your free will is self-evident, and that if you continue to ignore it, then you are being evasive.

You were saying that I was evasive because I did not address a particular argument you wanted to press, because it is somewhat beside the point. I offered to make a post entirely dedicated to it (and have, so you can bring the rest of your arguments to that topic), and yet you said that I was being evasive. Because it is so blatant that I am not evading, and yet you accuse me of it regardless, I must assume that you merely want to intimidate me by saying that I am being dishonest--which is an insult.

As for the self-evidence argument, I have perfectly well addressed that. I have said that it is not self-evident. Or rather, I do not perceive my own will. There is no more that can be discussed on such a topic, so it has been discussed as comprehensively as can be. Again, to claim evasion in this matter is blatant nonsense and an insult.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

As for the self-evidence argument, I have perfectly well addressed that. I have said that it is not self-evident. Or rather, I do not perceive my own will. There is no more that can be discussed on such a topic, so it has been discussed as comprehensively as can be. Again, to claim evasion in this matter is blatant nonsense and an insult.

You are stealing concepts. How in the world can you be insulted if I can't help it and neither can you? Is a tree insulted if you tell it that it fell down on purpose? Is a dog insulted if you tell it to not climb up on the chair? Being insulting implies that I did something deliberate to you, of my own free will, and that I did it intentionally to ruffle your feathers. But, if you don't have free will, and neither do I, then how can you claim that I did something intentional? How can you claim that I ought to do something else? How can you even claim that I broke some rule of politeness intentionally if I don't have free will? And why are you insulted in the first place, since my output was wholly undecided by me and my volition? I couldn't help it, according to you; so what do you want me to do about it? Sorry, shouldn't have asked that last question, since I can't do anything about it. Never mind.

[agrippa1]

Fair enough. Free will--if it exists--is that power in individuals which allows them to do one thing or another, free of antecedent necessity. Any choice "might have been otherwise". It is not caused by anything, but is an original agent of causation. Thus its identity is not necessitated, and thus is not created, by any antecedent. At best, its identity is self-created. It comes into being by the very act of willing itself into being--by the act of willing itself to have such-and-such an identity.

Free will is self-causative, but not self-created. The concept of free will, once perceived and grasped by the mind, implies its own existence by pointing to a contradiction in its non-existence, namely, that rejection of free will leads to a fatalism that dooms the self to a slow death of meaningless existence. Belief in free will leads us to make choices that extend our lives. Thus free will is necessitated by a perception of our ability to make choices for ourselves rather than rely on others for choices, or to be torn and blown by the random winds of existence. Free will is what I choose to do with my life. It can not be deterministic because it feeds back into itself in an infinite and indeterminate loop of introspection, and emotional and rational development. The slightest shift towards doubt or affirmation amplifies itself in a quagmire of despair or a burst of inspired ambition.

Regardless of the electro-chemical bases of mind, free will exists as soon as it is conceived, in every operational sense that applies to the knowable self.

[aleph_0]

Free will is self-causative, but not self-created.

So something else creates one's free will--meaning that this something else causes it to have its identity. And so one's will must act in accordance with the identity, which has been given to it. So its behavior is dictated by something outside of it.

You might say that its identity does not determine its actions, but then, what does? The only consistent answer would be, "It [the will] determines its actions." But this must mean that it does so by self-creating its own identity. It must be the beginning of the causation, and so it in a sense, is ex nihilo. It is a cause out of nothing--from no antecedent cause--and has the identity that it does because it wills itself to have it. That is self-creation, because it causes itself to be that which it is.

The concept of free will, once perceived and grasped by the mind, implies its own existence by pointing to a contradiction in its non-existence, namely, that rejection of free will leads to a fatalism that dooms the self to a slow death of meaningless existence. Belief in free will leads us to make choices that extend our lives.

The other topic I started is devoted to this topic, which is not all together relevant.

Regardless of the electro-chemical bases of mind,

This is definitely not the topic.

[agrippa1]

So something else creates one's free will--meaning that this something else causes it to have its identity. And so one's will must act in accordance with the identity, which has been given to it. So its behavior is dictated by something outside of it.

Is your behavior dictated by your parents?

[aleph_0]

Well, they don't issue commands which I am helpless to obey in the traditional sense, no.

Do my genetics determine my behavior? My experiences obviously affect me, so not exclusively, no.

Can you make your question more precise?

[agrippa1]

Well, they don't issue commands which I am helpless to obey in the traditional sense, no.

Do my genetics determine my behavior? My experiences obviously affect me, so not exclusively, no.

Can you make your question more precise?

I'm simply exploring the logic in your previous post. You argue that because free will is given by an antecedent, that therefore "its behavior is dictated by" that antecedent. I'm glad you recognize that it does not logically follow.

In answer to your original question, though, my belief is that free will is not axiomatic, that it derives from the perception of causality, and the resulting conceptualization of action/consequence and choice.

That does not mean that free will does not exist, or that it is the product of our mind, but that it is recognized implicitly through reason, not perception, and that it is therefore not axiomatic. The less rational mind has a more difficult time recognizing the antecedent premises that lead to the conclusion that free will exists.

Belief in free will leads to behavior more conducive to survival. It is therefore more rational, moral and ethical by definition to believe in free will. Therefore, the rational conclusion must be that free will exists. To believe otherwise is to choose not to survive, or at least to abandon any rational argument for survival.

The choice to doubt free will is irrational.

[aleph_0]

I'm simply exploring the logic in your previous post. You argue that because free will is given by an antecedent, that therefore "its behavior is dictated by" that antecedent.

Not quite. I argue a disjunction. Either there is no free will, or if there is, it creates itself.

In answer to your original question, though, my belief is that free will is not axiomatic, that it derives from the perception of causality, and the resulting conceptualization of action/consequence and choice.

I happily agree, though you'll find that this puts you in a minority of two on this forum. You and me, pal.

Belief in free will leads to behavior more conducive to survival.

I disagree, but it's not the aspect of will that I wished to discuss.

[agrippa1]

Not quite. I argue a disjunction. Either there is no free will, or if there is, it creates itself.

No, that's not what you said:

So something else creates one's free will--meaning that this something else causes it to have its identity. And so one's will must act in accordance with the identity, which has been given to it. So its behavior is dictated by something outside of it.

You deny that free will can exist without being unchangeable; that its identity, once identified, is immutable. I argued that free will is recognized initially from the concept of choice, and from there its identity is evolved by the rational mind.

I happily agree, though you'll find that this puts you in a minority of two on this forum. You and me, pal.

If so, we're in good company:

The faculty of volition operates in regard to the two fundamental aspects of man’s life: consciousness and existence, i.e., his psychological action and his existential action, i.e., the formation of his own character and the course of action he pursues in the physical world.

-Ayn Rand, “What Is Romanticism?” The Romantic Manifesto, 100.

That is, free will derives from the axioms of existence and consciousness. It is not axiomatic.

Edited August 14, 2008 by agrippa1

[Marc K.]

Marc, I’m not sure whether we have free will. Yes, I reject that knowledge of free will is an axiom. I do agree that the senses are valid, that one must believe in the senses, and that existence and consciousness are axioms. I do not sense or observe my own free will.

Well first, I didn't say that "knowledge of free will is an axiom", I said "free will is axiomatic". That man possesses free will is a fact of nature, it is implied in everything you do or say or think, the act of denying it presupposes it. But besides this misunderstanding the rest isn't so bad, I've seen worse on this forum. At least we have a starting point: existence exists, consciousness is conscious, the senses are valid and they perceive that which exists -- good.

If all we have to work on is your perception of your own volitional consciousness this should be easy:

Look around the room, focus on something, it could be anything, the computer, what program is running, a book, the sky, your mother, something that isn't even in the room. What do you think about these things? I bet it was something specific. Now shift your focus, choose to focus on something different (I won't suggest anything, you decide). There, does that do it? If not shift your focus again.

Maybe you'd like a better demonstration than just thinking, OK: stand up, walk around, stomp your foot, stomp it twice, stomp it five times, stomp it x times. Does that do it?

There are more demonstrations we can try but they get more and more pointed while more and more explicit and undeniable. Check out the other threads on determinism to see some.

[aleph_0]

No, actions--not even actions that I think about and then do--demonstrate my will.

[EC]

No, actions--not even actions that I think about and then do--demonstrate my will.

Bold mine.

What do the "demonstrate" then?

[agrippa1]

Bold mine.

What do the "demonstrate" then?

They demonstrate a perception of entities, a conceptualization of a situation, an identification of alternative courses of action, a prediction of the consequence of each, based on previous experience, an evaluation of the relative value of each consequence, and the execution of the "best" action. There is nothing in the actions themselves that demonstrates free will, and, to give a general rule, a lack of free will would not be perceptible if it derives from an internal deterministic mechanism of observation, orientation, option generation and evaluation, decision and action.

IMO, it is only through a philosophic consideration of the possibilities of free will and lack of free will that the rational conclusion of the existence of free will is reached.

Those who decide that free will does not exist can be expected to either destroy themselves, or to destroy so many of their fellow men that they meet with retributive destruction. It's the middle-of-the-roaders, the undecideds, who allow a mixture of slavery and freedom to propagate through history.

Aleph_0, sad to say, is one of them.

(edit: typos)

Edited August 16, 2008 by agrippa1

[Marc K.]

They demonstrate a perception of entities, [...]

OK, this is automatic. But are you saying that the rest of this is too?:

[...] conceptualization [...] identification [...] prediction [...] evaluation [...] execution of the "best" action.

There is nothing in the actions themselves that demonstrates free will

Wrong. We take no action without first deciding to do so.

a lack of free will would not be perceptible if it derives from an internal deterministic mechanism of observation, orientation, option generation and evaluation, decision and action.

Yah, kind of like an animal.

[agrippa1]

OK, this is automatic. But are you saying that the rest of this is too?:

No, but I'm saying that none of those individually necessarily entails free will.

Wrong. We take no action without first deciding to do so.

You're saying here that the act of deciding demonstrates free will. Yet animals decide on actions, too. Does that mean that they have free will?

Here's an example: I put my Great Dane through an "IQ" test. One of the scenarios was to take a steel-wire barrier, make a 'U' out of it, with a treat at the inside bottom of the 'U', and the dog below the 'U'. My dog looked at the treat for a moment, then walked around the left side of the 'U', into the 'U' and got the treat.

He demonstrated each of the actions listed above, so: does he have free will?

Yah, kind of like an animal.

Exactly like an animal. The relevant difference between us and animals is that we've reached a conceptual level of rationality at which we recognize the concept of free will, and by so doing, prove its attainment require the conclusion that it exists.

Edited August 16, 2008 by agrippa1

[Marc K.]

That is, free will derives from the axioms of existence and consciousness. It is not axiomatic.

No, that is not right, free will is axiomatic and I'm not sure how you got this from what Ayn Rand said:

She calls it "the faculty of volition" meaning that it is part of our nature. It doesn't derive from anything. One possesses it whether they believe they do or not and one uses it whether they acknowledge it or not. She says free will "operates in regard to [...]: consciousness and existence" meaning that one uses free will in order to operate his mental actions and his physical actions.

Here is what Ayn Rand said about axiomatic concepts:

An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.

-Ayn Rand, ITOE, 73.

This describes volition. There is no proof, there are no concepts, there is no philosophy, there is no man, without volition.

Leonard Peikoff describes it further in OPAR pg.69 in the section "Volition as Axiomatic".

I argued that free will is recognized initially from the concept of choice, and from there its identity is evolved by the rational mind.

Free will is the ability to choose. That is its identity and it doesn't change. You may use your faculty of volition and change your mind but the ability to change your mind doesn't change.

As to your dog I guess you are saying that animals perform the same actions as man and I would argue with most of the list you included but certainly animals don't "conceptualize". If they did I would converse with them or have them drive me around or, in the very least, I would expect them to be able to untangle themselves from the tree they just wrapped themselves around.