Proof of nonexistence of free will

I think we are all wrong. The whole debate is an exchange of perpectives, supported by another perspectives, not facts. We can not state facts, as facts exist without us defining it, once we state a fact is not a fact anymore just our understanding of it. Expressed in so imperfect way of communication, that even amplifies the distortion of the fact.
We take concepts for granted, like in physics, until they are proven wrong.
If we cant prove something it does not mean it does not exist, and analogically if we have a proof we not might but we are wrong... all the time. Defining reality gives us sense of security, as we all have different perspectives, perception...reality is distorted every time we experience it to match requirements of our belief system. People change perspectives, change their minds about facts of reality all the time. Like back when "the earth was flat", now is not, at some stage everything is being restructured in our heads but only reality is never intact. No debate needed, changing Yours or somebody else's mind, based on always biased research as we only change ourselves (what we believe). That is my perspective, presented and expressed in best way possible(English is mysec. lang.). The whole post is one big contradiction, my reality vs all your realities.

Poor examples. We know the world isn't flat based on many observations that cannot be refuted. Those are FACTS. No amount of future knowledge will refute that fact.

When You say "We" who do You exactly mean by that, I am aware of observations and other means and proofs. But "We" are "them", and objectively, with no empirical cognition we are forced to believe their word.
I think on a big scale like a shape of our planet, we can understand laws, proofs provided in support of that "theory" but only understand never comprehend. Like I said we take so much for granted, and always did, always will... we love explanations, and even if there is not enough evidence we come up with brilliant theories.
I'm not questioning the "shape" of our planet just used it as an exaggerated example just don't like pseudo-sophisticated complex examples, I am a simple person with questions

I don't think knowledge is the only factor allowing us to perceive the reality.
We use our senses, and then the brain processes input, and outputs distorted version of reality.
We will never be able to "see" it the way it is. No matter how much knowledge we gather, reality is all there is and we can not know all. And in case I'm wrong, once we have all the information, we will still interpret it.
It is the same as trying to understand how birds see the magnetic field of The Earth. We can assume, but never will know for sure.

Oh dear...if only you had read a little philosophy!

I would not mind any recommendation (titles, authors and concepts) and constructive feedback, like I said it is my only my opinion.
I felt like expression myself and the discussion is very interesting, I am aware that I might not match the standards of this discussion but willing to learn. So I would appreciate if You elaborate more on Your statement so I can understand Your point of view.
Thanks in advance.

See my answer on your other thread.

If there is no free will than a proof and non-proof are on the same footing, they will have the effect they have, not because they appeal to the deliberative power of a free agent, but because some mechanistic response has the effect of 'agreement' or 'disagreement'.

How dumb to argue about the existence of free will.

To argue for it from logic proves just the opposite as Aquinas noted.

But man acts from judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought. But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things. FOR REASON IN CONTINGENT MATTERS MAY FOLLOW OPPOSITE COURSES, as we see in dialectic syllogisms and rhetorical arguments. Now particular operations are contingent, and therefore in such matters the judgment of reason may follow opposite courses, and is not determinate to one. And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will.

That leaves out what happens to people whose chemistry in the brain can affect their personality and actions.

A person is born with a drive to exist.

Existence links up one moment with the next, like a path linking together one meter of ground with the next one.

Existence is constantly challenged by obstacles and threat in its path.

The utility resolving these challenges, is either Devine intelligence naked, or more commonly, with a programming attached to it,
Called the mind.

Regardless of what the mind believe about choice,
The survival instinct always forces it to select existence rather than demise.

The programming serves like a map, defining and explaining the terrain.

Just like the map cannot choose your destination for you, so can't the mind.

It doesn't possess its own opinion,
It always is the same decision,
Thriving survival,
Belonging to the survival instinct (not as decision though).

The mind is actually truly unbiased.

What distorts and complicates things, is deception.

The instinct wants to survive and thrive,
But what is survival?

The instinct has no clue.

So whatever in the programming is most convincing to the instinct, as genuine thriving survival,
The instinct grabs it.

What are the factors convincing the instinct?

1, stimulation.
The body is equipped with sensors, like eyes,
Ears, and so on.
When something is sensed, it occurs through projection or diversion (in a more common term, focus).

This means, that consciousness was navigated to a specific direction and expands into its target, transforming the light rays or sound waves (actually, its reaction to those),
Into existing consciousness.

This stimulating experience (stimulation occurs on multiple levels and at various locations.
The ear drum simulation for instance, is not consciousness, it's just a brain chemical,
It's also not the grand experience, it is not even the audio experience.
The actual experience is reproduced mentally, based on the former.
Just like you can't position yourself between a radio transmitter and a receiver, and listen in,
As these are radio waves, not sound waves.
Sound waves hitting the ear drum can only stimulate the ear drum, it cannot magically invade the body and reach the brain,
It stops at the ear drum,
What you hear is not sound, but a generated reaction to sound,
Generated by consciousness, and consumed by consciousness)

These stimulations are giving expression to consciousness, and are therefore giving consciousness lots of limelight, but these stimulations are also getting lots of credit for their effect, and become promoted as they promote​ life.

So when the mind is confronted with contradicting options,
With all of them claiming that they are thriving survival,
The one which stimulates the most consciousness,
Will be a convincing factor.

2,
Emotion.
Whichever idea whips up the most emotional excitement,
Is also perceived as most genuine.

These are contributing factors, not decisive ones,
Which means, that they affect but also adopt to the overall picture.

So there is no choice between good and bad.

Only between truth and false.

How is this a choice?

Why world you go for the lie, if you could help it?

You didn't choose the lie,

The lie chose you.

Its ability to pose as truth was overpowering your capacity to discern between the two.

But the belief in delusional choice keeps causing you to fall for the lie, time and time again.

If you would be aware how blind you naturally are,

your focus would be on external truth,

Not on internal choice.

Assuming ownership over your good and bad choices, is destroying you equally with both types.

They both reconfirm the delusion that your mind is a human being, vs truthfully realizing that the mind is a map.

Imagine, if you would worship your GPS as a god, because you perceive it's automated programmed rerouting, as the machine making excellent choices.

The GPS cannot choose between taking you to your destination, or not.

It cannot decide another destination for you.

It is the preset destination (the instinct) that has decided (also without choice, likewise the instinct to live isn't a choice either) the direction of the journey, and the mind (the GPS) is only the map, showing what was written on it,

So is the mind, only returning what was put into it (written on it),

A drawing, a book.

How can a book be a human being?

A person is born, and nurtured by the mother to survive.

Reality may be black and white but I am unable to see it that way.

PEMBERTON TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) — A New Jersey woman who authorities say put her newborn baby in the middle of a road and set the child on fire was charged Saturday with murder.

Burlington County prosecutors said Hyphernkemberly Dorvilier, 22, of Pemberton Township was jailed on $500,000 bail. It wasn’t known if she has retained a lawyer.
Police responded to a Friday night call about a fire in the middle of a residential road in the township, about 30 miles east of Philadelphia. Officers found the baby in flames and put out the fire.
The child reportedly was alive and breathing at the time she was flown to a hospital in Philadelphia, said Joel Bewley, a spokesman for the prosecutor’s office. She died about two hours later, he said in a news release. An autopsy will be performed to determine the cause of death.
Authorities believe the mother doused her baby with an accelerant then set her on fire, Bewley said. They do not have a motive. The woman was taken into custody Friday night.
Prosecutor Robert Bernardi said details of the baby’s birth were still being investigated. The baby’s age has not been disclosed. Bernardi would not comment on whether the mother has a criminal record or if she has been involved with child welfare officials.
Dave Joseph, 45, of Pemberton Township told The Burlington County Times that he saw a young woman get out of her car and light something on fire in the middle of Simontown Road. He said the woman told him she was burning dog waste.
Joseph said the woman appeared calm and soon tried to flee the scene, but residents stopped her.
“It was just mind-boggling,” Joseph said. “It was a nightmare even if you have a strong heart.”
Read More Stories About:
Big Government



  
by Taboola 
Sponsored Links 
We Recommend


How to Stop Snoring (Use This Every Night)
My Snoring Solution


Man Who Predicted The Election Outcome Makes Next Prediction
MoneyWise411


Reclusive Millionaire Warns: "Get Out Of Cash Now"
DailyWealth


Watch How To Shed Pounds Of Unwanted Fat Every Night
HealthTrends


This Pochantas Quit: Her Disneyland Secrets Will Haunt You
Trend Chaser


Here's The Tactical Jacket Everyone is Obsessed With
Tactical Deal Shop


His Insane Backyard Pool Idea is Actually Genius (Pics)
Grizly


What She Did With An Old Cooler Is Genius
HeadCramp


Veterans Hit the Jackpot in 2017 in Florida
Morning Finance | LendingTree Quotes


45 Ancient Artifacts That Have Archaeologists Baffled
History In Orbit


30 Car Cleaning Hacks From Industry Insiders
Activly


This Box Sat In An Airport For 7 Days – What Was Inside Was Heartbreaking
Scribol


They Thought She Would Eat Her, But She Didn't
Mozo Travel


See Cable Selections From Leading Internet Service Providers.
Search Cable Ads


15 Cars Nobody Wants to Buy Anymore
Activly


Find Out What She Really Thinks Of Your Style
Askmen


25 Oldest Restaurant Chains in America, Which One is Over 100 Years Old?
ViralTide


33 WWII Photos That Are Unfit For History Books
USA Social Condition

Trending Articles


Suspect Shoots Three Dead In Fresno, Yells ‘Allahu Akbar’…
A suspect who opened fire, killing three in Fresno, allegedly said "Allahu Akbar" as police jumped on him and took him…

 





Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.

Around The Web
Powered By ZergNet

San Diego Woman Dies After Turmeric Infusion
Foxnews.com

The United Airlines Passenger Isn't the Most Innocent Man Either
TMZ.com

How Joy Villa's Life Has Changed Since Pro-Trump Dress
Foxnews.com


advertisement


advertisement
BREITBART CONNECT

Sign Up For Our Newsletter


Sponsored Links 

I do think you have some good points on this although i think you need to take both a closer look as well as a look at the big picture. I have paragraphed my response in hopes this helps you to see where i'm coming from when making my points and thank you in taking the time to read this.

The senses.

The chemical functions that occur in most animals such as sight, smell, hearing has been formed over time by evolution to the point where the creatures that don't have these have either gone extinct or have had to find new ways to cope ie. bats rely on echo location, hedgehogs rely on smell and defensive measures, eagles rely on sight to navigate and detect prey from long distances below them. Without these the animals would struggle to survive.

Nature & nurture.

The survival instinct itself is part of the chemical processes in the brain, a study of silver foxes showed that friendly to human fox embryos carried full term and nurtured by an aggressive to human surrogate were still very friendly towards humans and the aggressive to human fox embryo in a friendly to human surrogate was still aggressive. This shows us that genetics has a very heavy hand when it comes to personality. Not to say that nurture doesn't have a place in the way of shaping personality but it would explain why everyone sounds just like their mom or dad when they start to reach maturity. If evolution made it so that friendly to human foxes were able to survive longer and over populate the aggressive foxes then the majority of foxes would be friendly to humans which would mean either the aggressive foxes would slowly be bred out of the population or the aggressive foxes would have to find something else that gave them the edge to survive separately.

The unthinking machines.

Now a slight detour into animo acid, rna, dna and viruses. Animo acids are known to naturally form given the correct conditions and rna has a very high chance being formed naturally given time in the correct conditions. one step onwards and you get dna, or a code that can create enzymes and replicate itself. Michigan state university has been studying evolution using computer code (look up DEVOLAB in case you are interested). Now one of the things they noticed is that mutations that were previously thought to have no significance actually helped certain simulated cells to survive in different environments. One thing they also noticed was that given time the code could adapt well to almost any task they set. And so by setting the question you would be almost guaranteed to get a positive response in the form of some mutations performing better than others. The most popular theory is that rna is the predecessor to dna, which follows the idea that given enough time and the correct resources and the code the code in the form of amino acids will naturally find a way of completing this.
The animo acids and the elements that form them did not make a choice to build enzymes or proteins the rna through no decision of it's own had to react the way it did when presented with the correct chemicals to make the first dna combination, the rest that followed would be through to the evolution process whereby the animals that have the willingness and ability to survive will succeed better than the animals that don't. It is also where communities of organisms came to rely on each other for support (take away all the bacteria in the human body and you would die). So when you look at advanced organisms such as ourselves then we are only at our most base function fulfilling the needs that allow our cells to continue in their own self replicating manner. Beneficial to that is the ability to recognise and outlive dangers and take advantage of good environments, the tool which benefits us greatly with this is of course the brain.

Programming of the mind. (the OS)

It is beneficial to the individual that they do not have depression as depression could lead to problems either producing offspring or raising offspring well or may in the worst cases lead to suicide, in any case the genetics that are self destructive will more than likely burn out quickly. as a species we have found it is easier to survive if we band together in social groups rather than only meet to mate and raise our young. which leads to the next point social constructs follow the evolutionary pattern too. A society that has a bad model will either have it's citizens move to a better one or replace the old one (revolt) meaning that the bad model will likely not last too long or will last but have a disadvantage over other societies. It is unlikely that a society that allows murder will last long as the citizens would soon find out, it is beneficial to a society that rules are in place to remove the disruptive and damaging or at least minimise the effects.

Morality.

If you take the one person and put them on an island by themselves they cannot be immoral or moral as they have no other view to compare this to. As soon as you introduce another person then there is a difference in views, they might think that it is immoral to eat coconuts on tuesdays but the first person might disagree. It is only immoral behaviour to the second person and the other people who agree with second person to eat a coconut on tuesday and is therefore subjective to the morality of that person or those people. It may or may not be beneficial in the long run for a society to hold on to this moral point of view. Morality has it's part to play in the concept of the non existent free will.

Scenario

a burglar kills a man, important note (it does not matter if he meant to or not the result is the same). below are the reasons why this burglar has no free will.

The background noise is important.
The universe that is could only have happened the way it has done otherwise it wouldn't be the universe as we know it, it would be a different universe if even one hydrogen atom was someplace else different to where it should naturally be given the way that all the atoms (including living beings as well free willed or otherwise). As such had no choice that the atoms that could form proteins would do so and so could/would create amino acids that would form rna, dna and then the life that extends onwards through natural selection. In none of those steps did the burglar have a choice that those atoms would be where they ended up to start the self replicating process of dna that is the code life as we know it. He also would not have been able to change the evolutionary processes that led to himself and his genetical personality. He would also have no control over the environment in which would grow up in that may allow for or encourage what a society would perceive as negative personality traits.

All roads lead to Rome (or in this case the death of a person by a burglar).

If the burglar kills intentionally and he has the personality and the right conditions at hand to do so then he will do so. if he kills unintentionally then he would still need the same parameters as the burglar that intentionally kills, the right personality that could lead to accidentally shooting somebody (a nervous disposition) and the conditions to do so (having a gun, a provoking element such as fear of the dark and a noise) and lastly even if he knows that these are the possible outcomes of his personality and the conditions and shoots the person anyway then that too comes under the means to do so and the personality to do so. Even if the burglar is only a witness his lack of action can be caused by his means to do so and personality. In the end the burglar has no control over the unfolding events or how they will react to them.

Summary of how I feel about this conclusion.

Does this mean that we should stop all punishments and allow all murderers, rapists, thieves etc. out of our prisons because they had no choice about their fate. I personally do not think so. I am glad I live in a society that has a collective moral point of view that does not encourage or allows detrimental behaviour to go unanswered but I would encourage psychological help for groups of people that are at risk of breaking the rules of society as preventative measures are always more effective than trying to repair damage to peoples lives. By having prisons we keep potentially damaging effects away from society, but at the same time we should look to rehabilitation to prevent reincarceration and turn harmful genetic code to our evolved society into positive genetic code that either poses no threat or improves the society we have. In the end I believe that we are biomachines and though we do not have much choice in what comes to us through our lives and possibly little choice in the decisions and outcomes we can still strive to do our best at improving the societies we live in and at least look at the butterfly effect all around us that gives us the beauty and the horrors that come with our existence, the fact that we don't know what will happen to us and when is a blessing as it gives us chance to strive for better.

Vilhelm Von Bacon

Most of the discussion on this topic has stated and restated common lines of argument. If I could introduce a less common (though certainly not novel) argument that presses the notion of conscious authoring of one's "thoughts" and actions, I'd start by looking for examples where there might be agreement that particular acts of a person did not originate as the conscious thoughts of the person.

Are people with severe developmental disabilities the authors of their behavioral symptoms? Could a person with autism, for example, simply choose to not express their behavioral symptoms, and thereby no longer be diagnosed with autism?

Hi there OP!

Sorry to everybody else but l cannot possibly read all your replies. One page is enough for me!

OK here goes:
- I found your original post pretty amazing, thank you.
- Your reasoning fails because
i) There can be general reasons, but the actions are always specific. You generalised everything, like: Hunger ---> so you eat an apple ---> point proven

Well no, there are many things one can eat. There are many moments one can begin eating the apple, in fact, maybe infinite moments or some Planck spacing between instants.

Also the length of time taken to eat the apple, the speed it's eaten at.

Which apple?

and so on.


ii) .... actually l think that wraps it up. Please respond.

Will have reasons/causes, they don't come out of the blue. On this regard, the expression Free will is a contradiction in terms. As for the randomness argument that doesn't grant you any more free willing since random implies you were not the cause of an X given action you just tossed a coin. More profoundly microbiologists recently have been looking at Humans as "superorganisms" on which 99% of the DNA you can find in yourself is from bacteria.You come to be aware of your NEEDS and call them choices but that is just semantics at work...

Here's one answer. https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-hide-my-autism

# = a logical fallacy or an intellectual error or shorthand for "Number" as in "Day #2"

"Will have reasons/causes, they don't come out of the blue."

FREE WILL IS SPONTANEOUS

Free will can be spontaneous. As someone else stated here, you can choose to do nothing if you so wish, or later act. Think of Roman Emperor capriciously deciding who dies & lives in gladiatorial games.

Would you try removing "caprice" from the dictionary as it is a false concept?
[# This would be Appeal to Authority by myself, but my argument doesn't rest on it, and l'm genuinely interested in if you would dare have it struck from the language).


_________________________________________

FREE WILL CAN BE BROKEN DOWN FOREVER (as an amateur l call this "Infinitely Reducible" whether it's a correct label or not):

Also, free will is infinitely reducible, whereas mere Cause vs. Effect is not.

Example:

I saw man steal candy from baby. I did nothing.
Next day, l saw man steal candy from baby. Out of guilt for doing nothing last time, l punched the man.

BUT: It is actually non sequitur that I did nothing yesterday leads to I did something today, when man steals from baby again.

REASON: Why do l act today? Answer: man is stealing from baby.
Why did l not act yesterday? Answer: didn't want to make a scene.
Why make a scene today? Answer: because l've had enough.
Why have you had enough? Answer: Errr ... my free will kinda says so. [This itself makes free will reducible, but in opposition to Cause + Effect, hence even by being reducible, Free Will thus trumps Cause + Effect, which are themselves reducible, because Free Will is the antithesis of Cause + Effect]
You mean your feelings have changed? Answer: yes, only so much l can take of this
What sets the limit to how much you can take of this? Answer: Mommy / Daddy issues
Can you be more precise? Answer: Yes [... autobiography follows ...]
Which of course raises a cascade of other questions

THUS it reduces ad infinitum. Proof: I've never seen an end to it in my entire life when l've questioned a phenomena and questioned the response etc. - it just goes on forever.

Objection: So, any phenomenon can have infinite causation. No need for free will.

Answer: OK but then in the cause of human free will, you've made the argument that it is merely causation, unfalsifiable, because you've invoked infinity, something unknowable, because any causation could be infinite.

Objection: You are only talking about a set chain of events.

Answer: Ok in that case, Free Will has trumped that. Also in what follows:


_________________________________________



FREE WILL IS AN ART FORM, HENCE TIMING 1 MOMENT OUT OF INFINITE POSSIBILITIES:

And then, of course there is the timing of when to punch the man stealing from baby. The exact timing. It's an art form, l don't believe you strike when you get a visual lock on a certain facial bone and when the man is at just the right angle. Even then you might hesitate, or be premature. It's an art form.


Speaking of which: are works of art = Cause + Effect? All those art museums? Would it be possible to ever predict the next work of art to emerge? Predict the next art museum's contents? Answer: No. # Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so please bring the proof.


_________________________________________


FREE WILL JUST *IS*, NOT AS A LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS CIRCULAR ARGUMENT, IT GENUINELY JUST EXISTS, IT JUST *IS* (as an amateur, l call this Irreducible, in competition with Causation, which also is self contained):

"As for the randomness argument that doesn't grant you any more free willing since random implies you were not the cause of an X given action you just tossed a coin."

# False dichotomy. I never spoke of randomness as the alternative to Causation.
# Red herring / bait + switch: I never said Free Will = randomness, the position you then destroy without any reason to link it to my reply in the first place!

The opposite of Free Will = Causation
ALSO another opposite is Randomness, dead, mindless, bodiless, randomness.

Even if you punch man stealing from baby on Day #2, you might again do nothing on Day #3 when it happens again. Just by whim. Like Roman Emperor deciding by whim who lives / dies.

That is pseudo-random & the essence of Free Will: Sponteneity. Willed Randomness.

(Once again, you see how Free Will is reduced to Freely Willed Randomness, i.e. it is a circular definition, it just is, it is irreducible, in competition with Causation which too is irreducible i.e. it just is, no further explanation, Free Will just is, and sequence A->B->C just is, it's complete within itself. Also note how l showed Fee Will to be infinitely reducible in that you can break down reasoning ad infinitum - again, setting it apart from a set chain of Causation).

I wonder if there is genuinely any un-willed Randomness (true Chaos)? It could just be unknown science. Like, the electron cloud of an atom could actually be governed by laws.


_________________________________________


CONCLUSION:

But as for Free Will, I have now demonstrated that it is outside of Causation. Thank you.



_________________________________________


OTHER STUFF YOU WROTE:

"More profoundly microbiologists recently have been looking at Humans as "superorganisms" on which 99% of the DNA you can find in yourself is from bacteria.You come to be aware of your NEEDS and call them choices but that is just semantics at work... ""

All you are saying is: "Look, we have DNA" (this is not news)
and "that DNA came from bacteria" (this is really iffy)
and "therefore we cannot have Free Will" (# This is a Non Sequitur)

heading: IT'S ALL THE SAME THING! FREE WILL = INFINITE = CAUSATION. SOURCE = GREATER FREE WILL.

In the foregoing l demonstrated how:
- Free Will is infinitely reducible, like Causation appears to be to me
- Free Will is infinitely reducible unlike your concept of Causation which is finite sequence of events
- Free Will is irreducible - it just *is* - like your concept of Causation which is a finite sequence of events


MAYBE: Free Will and Causation are the *same thing*.
Maybe Free Will and Causation are an infinite regression of reasoning.
For phenomena that don't involve sentient beings, even then, Causation could be infinite.

Therefore: Our Free Will = Infinite Causation
The universe's events = Infinite Causation = a greater set of Free Will within which our Free Will runs as many virtual machines.

Therefore: We are all a subset of a Greater Free Will, within which, our Free Will runs as an illusion. Therefore that Greater Free Will = First Cause which has traditionally been a label applied to God.

We have free will to the extent of the social and economic constraints.

By the way, l know l made a mess of my previous two posts, l was just saying: free will and causation are both actually infinite, with causation being the background for our free will, a free will which l then demonstrate to exist. I then take my cue from the term "infinity" to say that our free will, and the background (causation) are both aspects of the same thing: infinity. Then l note that this infinity is also the logically First Cause (there's nowhere else causes could have come from, but a first cause, l think?). I then note that infinity and First Cause are traditionally cognate with God. So you have God in the background, with ourselves as extensions of him, ie. our reality is a dialogue completely within God. I also noted that it's probably over-simplistic to think of causation as anything other than infinite, because, have you *ever* reached the end of a chain of causation in either direction? Neither have I. So the question of free will vs. causation is a non-starter, because it's predicated on a simplistic concept of causation, as being a finite thing you can neatly wrap up and invoke to explain Free Will, when in fact both Free Will and Causation well up from Infinity, specifically from the First Cause. The end. (Or is it ... hehe lil joke from me there).