Proof of nonexistence of free will

Forums: Philosophy, Free Will, Freedom, Yes, Ok
Email this Topic • Print this Page

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.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 82 • Views: 145,623 • Replies: 1,556

@litewave,

You fail to account for inaction. A person may be compelled to do something, but the action will happen or it will not if a person chooses to. Doing nothing is a choice as well.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Doing nothing is determined by reasons or happens unintentionally too. I mean action in a general sense, as anything that happens.

1 Reply

@litewave,

In that case, I think you're tailoring your terms to your thesis.

You're using the word "reason(s)" without any dimension whatsoever. The reason a apple falls from a tree is the combination of the stem weakening and the mass of the apple being drawn to the greater mass of the earth. The reason a person chooses a career is a combination of factors too. The sum of those factors does not come out to a calculated answer. A person may choose their career because they are good at something, the money it makes, or even just because it is easiest. Some choices will obviously conflict and we get to decide what we value most.

You seem to be blurring reasoning and causation.

T
K
O

3 Replies

Logically speaking, you can't prove a negative anyways. So a proof of the non-existence of something is illogical. Your challenge instead is to prove that all outcomes are the product of natural forces.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@litewave,

So no one chooses to do evil therefore we are wrong to stop murders. It is simply an action with reasons.

4 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

In that case, I think you're tailoring your terms to your thesis.

You're using the word "reason(s)" without any dimension whatsoever. The reason a apple falls from a tree is the combination of the stem weakening and the mass of the apple being drawn to the greater mass of the earth. The reason a person chooses a career is a combination of factors too. The sum of those factors does not come out to a calculated answer. A person may choose their career because they are good at something, the money it makes, or even just because it is easiest. Some choices will obviously conflict and we get to decide what we value most.

You seem to be blurring reasoning and causation.

Reasons are causes. Reasons influence you to do something because that's why you do it. Why else would you do it? Only unintentionally.

Reasons may push you in different directions with different powers. Their joint influence determines your action.

3 Replies

@Diest TKO,

I can prove that a solution to the equation 0=1 does not exist. Similar with free will - it's a logical nonsense.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

So no one chooses to do evil therefore we are wrong to stop murders. It is simply an action with reasons.

Why should we not stop harmful actions?

1 Reply

Here we go again !

POINT 1
"Causality" works for billiard balls, but has no meaning in particle physics and falls apart under philosophical analysis. It also competes poorly with "teleology" in biology and the social sciences. Hence attempts at reducing "choice" to mechanisic determinism are epistemologically naive.

POINT 2.
The meaning of a concept such as "free will" is determined by its socially determined connections with other concepts such as "culpability" and "sin". ...i.e meaning is contextual use (Wittgenstein).The fact that "free will" also has connections with a more general concept of "choice" ( already undermined by point 1) has no more significance than say the concept of "weapon" being associated with a concept of " a knife", in so far as they have some common aspects. This point is simply illustrated by the fact that we do not in real life talk about "our free will" to put on a particular shirt.

3 Replies

@fresco,

TIMED OUT BY EDIT.....

This point is simply illustrated by the fact that we do not in real life talk about "our free will" to put on a particular shirt, anymore than we would ask for " a weapon" to open a parcel.

0 Replies

@litewave,

litewave wrote:

Reasons are causes. Reasons influence you to do something because that's why you do it. Why else would you do it? Only unintentionally.

Reasons may push you in different directions with different powers. Their joint influence determines your action.

reasons are just dessicated grapes

sorry, that's raisins, move along, nothing to see here

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

POINT 1
"Causality" works for billiard balls, but has no meaning in particle physics and falls apart under philosophical analysis. It also competes poorly with "teleology" in biology and the social sciences. Hence attempts at reducing "choice" to mechanisic determinism are epistemologically naive.

If you don't act for reasons then why do you act?

Quote:

POINT 2.
The meaning of a concept such as "free will" is determined by its socially determined connections with other concepts such as "culpability" and "sin". ...i.e meaning is contextual use (Wittgenstein).The fact that "free will" also has connections with a more general concept of "choice" ( already undermined by point 1) has no more significance than say the concept of "weapon" being associated with a concept of " a knife", in so far as they have some common aspects. This point is simply illustrated by the fact that we do not in real life talk about "our free will" to put on a particular shirt.

I claim there is no free will in the sense that one is in control of his actions.

2 Replies

@litewave,

so if there's no free will, is everything predetermined?

if so, what am i going to post next

3 Replies

@djjd62,

Quote:

so if there's no free will, is everything predetermined?

No, uncaused events are part of nature.

3 Replies

@litewave,

so, what are caused events

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

So no one chooses to do evil therefore we are wrong to stop murders. It is simply an action with reasons.

You're getting onto an awfully slippery slope there, Ionus. No one has said anything about 'right' or 'wrong.' Right and wrong are value judgements influenced by cultural conditioning. The two concepts have nothing whatever to do with the concept of 'free will.'

2 Replies

@djjd62,

Quote:

so, what are caused events

Those events that need other events.

0 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

Quote:

You're getting onto an awfully slippery slope there, Ionus. No one has said anything about 'right' or 'wrong.' Right and wrong are value judgements influenced by cultural conditioning. The two concepts have nothing whatever to do with the concept of 'free will.'

On the contrary ! "Right and wrong" have EVERYTHING to do with the concept of "free will". This is the Wittgensteinian point I keep hammering !

Once again existence of a concept depends on its social relationship with other concepts in particular contexts. Until this fundamental point is understood, all we will produce is Geschwatz (...chatter...language on holiday).

2 Replies

fresco wrote:

the...point I keep hammering !

Are you any good as a handyman, fresco? Twisted Evil

2 Replies

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know