Proof of nonexistence of free will

...let me sit down n get some popcorn, we have yet another beat to death horse necro thread resurrection !...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

We could talk about duelism. That might be exciting.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Oculus Rift is a nice gadget... Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Safer, too. I guess

0 Replies

@litewave,

There are only 3 possible ways your action can originate:

1) When you have reasons for your action - then the action is the result of those reasons.

2) When you don't have reasons for your action - then the action is unintentional.

3) Your action can be the result of a combination of 1) and 2).

None of those possibilities allow for free will because you are always compelled to your action and never in control of your action. >>

Stimulus causes you to react, not reason, not free will. Reasons why thoughts come after the act.

Your post, as an example, stimulated my response.

“My life has a superb cast, but I can't figure out the plot.” Ashleigh Brilliant

“I feel much better, now that I’ve given up hope.” Ashleigh Brilliant

0 Replies

So what I gathered reading this thread is that there are two basic catagory of people out there..

1. who believe there is a 'free will'

2. who believe that 'free will' is crap

There all of us chose to be a part of any one of the following catagory..
Or may be it was already desided and we just head-banged to the Master of Puppets..

As far as i am concerned, if someone tells me that we are just like a computer program which has its set of codes and gives output depending on the input we receive. I would like to tell them that they may be playing too much farmville on facebook..

T2N8

0 Replies

@litewave,

litewave wrote:

There are only 3 possible ways your action can originate:

1) When you have reasons for your action - then the action is the result of those reasons.

2) When you don't have reasons for your action - then the action is unintentional.

3) Your action can be the result of a combination of 1) and 2).

None of those possibilities allow for free will because you are always compelled to your action and never in control of your action.

Actually there is only one reaction - response to unpredictable stimulus

0 Replies

@litewave,

limited free will is still possible in terms of how to react to those reasons, choice in humans is always limited, most of the time extremely limited, many times the limitations consist of poor vision, a lack of clarity about what is bad or good, right or wrong, most of the time it's a matter of focus and a lack of desire to look objectively, overcome and disregard the overwhelming pressure of selfish bias.

the 2 limitations above , some times combine to form that tremendous wall of blindness making it virtually impossible to cling to that millimeter size crack, of variety in options.

in cases where the choice is not between good or bad, but rather between bad and worse, good or better, the above becomes even more restricted and limited to a chocking point.

none of the above can be labeled as free will, but rather as "very poor choice in restricted will".

regarding the existence of choice in will, someone has yet to choose "both options" at the exact same time, in order to prove it's existence , that has not yet happened, and will never happen

0 Replies

I believe in neither free will nor unfree will, and what I reject most of all is the notion of agency. I can do as I will, but I cannot will as I will. And please note that my linguistic culture requires that "I" use a grammar that contradicts "my" thesis.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I believe in neither free will nor unfree will, and what I reject most of all is the notion of agency. I can do as I will, but I cannot will as I will. And please note that my linguistic culture requires that "I" use a grammar that contradicts "my" thesis.

While i get the Schopenhauer reference, why do "you" believe that "will", an admittedly old-fashioned, but occasionally useful, conceptual place-holder, requires recursion to work?

And if grammar is the soul reason for your chosen turn of phrase, how is a "not-who" believing, or not, in anything? What believes, and, furthermore, what rejects? i am not a grammar Nazi; be creative, i'm willing to attempt an interpretation.

0 Replies

@litewave,

There are, of course, alternative explanations. One is that the actions of the moment have been selected by results tied to past actions. The reasons metaphor, as written here, is somewhat circular in #1, and when combined with #2 opens the door for the workings of an inner man; for which there is no evidence.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Briancrc wrote:

the actions of the moment have been selected by results tied to past actions

What's the catalyst of the "actions of the moment", and how do they tie in to "past results"? Are "past actions" a catalyst; how and how far back? What's the medium of these actions and the "past actions". If there is no medium how are past actions and "the present actions" tied together? Is the term "selection" used in your post a metaphor? Is the term "results", a metaphor. Are they more or less metaphorical than "free will"? What do you think the definition of "metaphor" is? What is the value of the "alternative explanations""you" "offer" in a world in which judgement/deciding is impossible?

But asking you a question is pretty pointless, yes? You'll just just re-emphasis your point without any attempt at empathy or understanding -- you're just a RL bot, like me...The thing, whatever it is, posting here, is just another object, yes?

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Selection is a process; not a metaphor. With respect to the frequency of particular traits appearing in a given species, variation, inheritance, propagation, and replication describe natural selection. Regarding the frequency of behavior, replication, variation, and selection by consequences account for what human and non-human animals do. These processes have been demonstrated in and out of laboratory research. It is not a rhetorical argument; which has been all that has been offered by proponents of freewill.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Briancrc wrote:

Selection is a process; not a metaphor. With respect to the frequency of particular traits appearing in a given species, variation, inheritance, propagation, and replication describe natural selection.

Selection is a cognate for "choosing", Darwin used it metaphorically.

"...Variation, inheritance, propagation, and replication" describe an awful lot of evolutionary processes, but none of them are predictive. The main way in which they are useful is in demonstrating the difference between past actions -- they may may, at best prove continuity, but they are poor evidence conformity to the past.

i realize that discussing our interpretations of evolutionary processes in no way furthers an argument for "free will", but your invoking those processes in order to disprove it is, in fact, rhetoric.

Briancrc wrote:

Regarding the frequency of behavior[:] replication, variation, and selection by consequences account for what human and non-human animals do. These processes have been demonstrated in and out of laboratory research.

And how does that disprove "free will"? If peer subjects of the same species are put in a controlled environment and their reactions are measureable, in some way -- then, what? They're similar (with predictable outliers)? Shocking!!! Only the most absurdly naive adolescent mind thinks that agency is linked to a striving for "absolute uniqueness". What if most people are simply "free-willing" themselves to get by within the world they find themselves in?

Briancrc wrote:

It is not a rhetorical argument; which has been all that has been offered by proponents of freewill.

In fact, yours is primarily a rhetorical argument, not unlike so many proponents and opponents of "free-will".

PS: Can you name me three modern proponents of free will who's books you've read? Can you answer any of my other questions from my previous post?

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Quote:

Darwin used it metaphorically.

You don't think Darwin was explaining the mechanism behind biological evolution; it was just a metaphor?

Quote:

If peer subjects of the same species are put in a controlled environment and their reactions are measureable, in some way -- then, what?

One can learn mechanisms that explain a natural phenomenon (human behavior). In other words, it opens the subject matter to prediction, verification, and replication. It doesn't disprove anything; it avoids claiming that there are metaphysical activities going on inside the person, and which are unsupported by evidence.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Razzleg wrote:

Briancrc wrote:

There are, of course, alternative explanations. One is that the actions of the moment have been selected by results tied to past actions.

Razzleg wrote:

Is the term "selection" used in your post a metaphor? Is the term "results", a metaphor?

Briancrc wrote:

Selection is a process; not a metaphor.

Razzleg wrote:

Selection is a cognate for "choosing", Darwin used it metaphorically.

Briancrc wrote:
You don't think Darwin was explaining the mechanism behind biological evolution; it was just a metaphor?

Ha. i really like those blinders you have on. i've seen other people around here wear them, but yours are very stylish; they must really "guide" "the deba...", i mean, "the conversation". Anyway...

Charles Darwin was a pioneer. A brilliant and insightful scientist, who, along with other smart and like-minded peers, introduced the scientific concept of evolution and jump-started modern biology. Genetics, environmentalism, and many other scientific fields (including, of course, medicine) would not be where they are today without his work.

And like many of our finest scientists, he used rhetorical devices like metaphor to disseminate his ideas, both amongst his peers and with a wider audience. His use of the term, "Natural Selection", was just such a rhetorical turn of phrase. He didn't intend to suggest that Dame Nature chooses her favorites, but his phraseology, in order to quiet concerns about the radical atheism his view gave room to, eluded metaphysical claims, via anachronism, in order to better present the evidence yielded by observed phenomena.

i don't think that Darwin "was explaining the mechanism behind biological evolution." i think that he observed the evidence available to him, and offered a theory as to how the process of evolution works. i think that the theory of evolution has developed quite a bit since its inception, but i think that Darwin's observations remain an invaluable scientific asset.

Briancrc wrote:

Razzleg wrote:
If peer subjects of the same species are put in a controlled environment and their reactions are measureable, in some way -- then, what?

One can learn mechanisms that explain a natural phenomenon (human behavior). In other words, it opens the subject matter to prediction, verification, and replication. It doesn't disprove anything; it avoids claiming that there are metaphysical activities going on inside the person, and which are unsupported by evidence.

"Mechanism"? That wouldn't be a metaphor would it? You're not getting all rhetorical on me, are you? You used the word twice in your last post, so i assume that you weren't using it ignorant of its potential metaphorical import. Your insistence that we are mechanical in nature implies an engineer, intelligently designing us, yes? No? Then, you were using the term metaphorically? (i have to pretend we're having an exchange here, because i doubt that you're going to address any of this in your hypothetical response. Sorry, but my past observation of this natural phenomenon [your human behavior] prompts me to believe that the subject matter won't respond. i will be able to verify my prediction by your behavioral replication.)

Briancrc wrote:

It doesn't disprove anything; it avoids claiming that there are metaphysical activities going on inside the person, and which are unsupported by evidence.

You do see what you did there, right? Free-will advocates aren't the only ones limited to rhetorical measures regarding this topic, even those pretending to claim nothing.

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Quote:

i don't think that Darwin "was explaining the mechanism behind biological evolution." i think that he observed the evidence available to him, and offered a theory as to how the process of evolution works. i think that the theory of evolution has developed quite a bit since its inception, but i think that Darwin's observations remain an invaluable scientific asset.

You quibble over commonly used language in academic circles http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_16
but I have no problem with how you stated this.

Quote:

You do see what you did there, right? Free-will advocates aren't the only ones limited to rhetorical measures regarding this topic, even those pretending to claim nothing.

You must have an exceptionally broad definition of "rhetorical". Since you seem to have learned well from other internet debaters, I will understand if this doesn't go far, but for what it's worth, what do you think accounts for freewill (e.g., indeterministic chance)?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Briancrc wrote:

...I will understand if this doesn't go far...

Will you, thank goodness! If only "will" was real.

It's almost as if you expected me to answer you more than you answered me.

Briancrc wrote:

Razzleg wrote:
i don't think that Darwin "was explaining the mechanism behind biological evolution." i think that he observed the evidence available to him, and offered a theory as to how the process of evolution works. i think that the theory of evolution has developed quite a bit since its inception, but i think that Darwin's observations remain an invaluable scientific asset.

You quibble over commonly used language in academic circles http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_16
but I have no problem with how you stated this..[.]

...You must have an exceptionally broad definition of "rhetorical"...

The frequency with which a term or terms are used doesn't impede their usage in rhetorical formulas, if anything frequency encourages its participation. I mean, how else would a metaphor appear in the apparently sacred Berkeley lexicon. Heavens.

And it's not that i have a broad definition of rhetoric, so much as rhetoric permeates intellectual and academic discourse like water fills a sponge. Zounds, we're ploppingly plump with it.

Briancrc wrote:

Razzleg wrote:
You do see what you did there, right? Free-will advocates aren't the only ones limited to rhetorical measures regarding this topic, even those pretending to claim nothing.

Since you seem to have learned well from other internet debaters, I will understand if this doesn't go far, but for what it's worth, what do you think accounts for freewill (e.g., indeterministic chance)?

That's a patheticallty "strong" statement on your part, ie being exasperated at not being answered prior tio the fact, givent that you've never ansered one of my questions, you hypocrite.

Briancrc wrote:

(e.g., indeterministic chance)

Please, is that dichotomy the only difference you can imagine...?

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Quote:

That's a patheticallty "strong" statement on your part, ie being exasperated at not being answered prior tio the fact, givent that you've never ansered one of my questions, you hypocrite.

I'm not aware of any questions not answered. I've made attemps to summarize as succinctly as I could the mechanisms (and I find this word perfectly reasonable to use; rejecting your assertion that the word's meaning as I used it refers to machinery) that can support a theory of determinism. You, however, seem more interested in attacking me than discussing the rationale for a position. You write well. I would guess that you're well educated. But I am beginning to suspect that you might not be prepared to debate the concepts based on the merits of their premises; which is why I jumped in on the discussion board. If I'm wrong about your preparedness, then please, offer your position in support of freewill.

0 Replies

@litewave,

" Quantum mechanics is indeterministic, in that the outcomes of measurements are chosen at random from the slate of possibilities. So, if quantum effects help to shape our conscious choices, they sever the connection between us and the initial conditions of the universe. Quantum physics is time-symmetric, so we are as justified in saying that our choices set the cosmic initial conditions as the other way round."
-Scientific American

Also this:
https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-in-microtubules-inside-brain-neurons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness

There we have it, folks.

0 Replies

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know