Proof of nonexistence of free will

@fresco,

Quote:

But don't you see that the mechanistic/conditioning argument must equally be applied to your own thoughts by you! i,e. The "reason" that you think in mechanistic terms is because you have been conditioned by the couple of hundred years of "success" of mechanisms. (Read point 1 above for the problems with such "success".) Reductionism simply does not work in the social sciences.

The fact that I was conditioned to believe something doesn't mean that what I believe is not true. I was also conditioned to believe that 1+1=2, do you doubt it is true?
Reductionism may not work in social sciences because human being is too complex to find out all details about it. But I have a logical case for saying that all human actions are caused by reasons or unintentionally. Our actions are caused by reasons because that's why we act, except for cases when we act unintentionally. Why would we act without reasons? We would not, except when acting unintentionally.

1 Reply

@litewave,

Quote:

The fact that I was conditioned to believe something doesn't mean that what I believe is not true. I was also conditioned to believe that 1+1=2, do you doubt it is true?
Reductionism may not work in social sciences because human being is too complex to find out all details about it. But I have a logical case for saying that all human actions are caused by reasons or unintentionally. Our actions are caused by reasons because that's why we act, except for cases when we act unintentionally. Why would we act without reasons? We would not, except when acting unintentionally.

Every one of those highlighted words has contextual constraints. To attempt an argument without recognizing this is equivalent to attempting to play tennis on a ploughed field with a football and a couple of spades.

I rest my case.

1 Reply

@fresco,

How do contextual constraints invalidate my argument?

1 Reply

@litewave,

litewave wrote:

Quote:
No. You can prove that 1=1, and that 0=0. Proofs are done in positive statements with supporting statements. If you do not believe in free will, then our actions are predetermined and we're just waiting for the sand to fall. Your challenge is to prove that all outcomes are due to natural forces.

Proving that 0=1 is false is the same as proving that 0<>1 is true. Didn't you do proofs of inequalities in school?

Yes I did plenty and we didn't prove the world wasn't flat, we proved that it was round. You're attempting to use common language as a susbtitute for proper logical syntax.

litewave wrote:

Everything in nature is not predetrmined.

I agree, but your argument contradicts this. Without free will as a driver, all events would be a natural product.

litewave wrote:

There are also uncaused events. (These would of course be unintentional, without reasons.)

Your contradicting your previous statements on the relationship between reason and intention.

For fun, provide what you think would be an example of an "uncaused event."

litewave wrote:

Address my argument in the OP and show me where it is possible for free will to exist.

1) We can choose many actions.
2a) Any action can have many outcomes.
2b) An intellegent being can concieve and perceive of multiple outcomes even if not all outcomes.
3) We can choose to take no action.
4) Understanding an outcome means we have free will to drive and event.

If you could see the future, you'd know what you'd have done. Knowing what you've done means you can choose to do something different. This is free will. The only functional difference between being able to see the future and predicting the future based on your observation is the difference between absolute certainty and being mostly certain. Free will exists withotu having to see the future because we only need to understand a possible outcome, we don't need it to be verified prior to the choice.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@litewave,

Quote:

How do contextual constraints invalidate my argument?

Can we apply "validity" to arguments like "Santa Clause doesnt exist because he wouldn't fit down chimneys" ? That is the level of your argument.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

litewave wrote:

Everything in nature is not predetrmined.

I agree, but your argument contradicts this. Without free will as a driver, all events would be a natural product.

My argument does not contradict this. Uncaused events are indeterminate because there is no cause to determine them. This is included under point 2 in my argument. You don't need free will to have indeterminism.

Quote:

For fun, provide what you think would be an example of an "uncaused event."

These are events that exhibit quantum uncertainty, for example nuclear decay.

Quote:

1) We can choose many actions.
2a) Any action can have many outcomes.
2b) An intellegent being can concieve and perceive of multiple outcomes even if not all outcomes.
3) We can choose to take no action.
4) Understanding an outcome means we have free will to drive and event.

The knowledge or perception of outcomes of various actions and how they relate to our desires are reasons that influence our choice. Our choice will be determined by the reasons that influence us more strongly than other reasons, those that best fulfill our desires in the given situation.

For example, you can have a food that is both very tasty and unhealthy. So you have two opposing reasons: desire to eat the food (because of its good taste) and desire not to eat it (because of health concerns). Which action will you choose - eat or not eat? It depends on which of the two reasons affects you more strongly. If the desire to eat is stronger than the desire not to eat then you'll eat. There's no reason to choose not eating when you have a stronger reason for eating. However, the existence of a reason for not eating, depending on its strength, may slow down your action of eating: you may eat less than if you had no health concerns. That's how a given set of reasons determines your action. You might also choose not to eat, despite the reason for eating being stronger, but then your action goes against the given set of reasons - there is an element of reasonlessness and thus unconsciousness/unintentionality in your action because you are not aware why you take it.

So, whether your action is determined by reasons or not, there is no free will.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Can we apply "validity" to arguments like "Santa Clause doesnt exist because he wouldn't fit down chimneys" ? That is the level of your argument.

My level of argument is that Santa Claus doesn't fit anywhere, so it's impossible that he exists.

1 Reply

@litewave,

No, you still don't get it !

The CONCEPT exists by virtue of the fact that it evokes a social phenomenon with respect to parent child relationships in Western society. The fact that the concept does not imply "materiality" on the part of adults is an aspect of the nature of the relationship between the CONCEPTS of "adulthood" and "mythology".

By analogy the CONCEPT of "free-will" exists by virtue of its relationship to concepts of social responsibility and some religions. Elimination of "free-will", like the elimination of "Santa Claus" would involve social consequences.

Your argument is vacuous because firstly, it relies on on the naive realism of "concepts" being equvalent "objects" and secondly bcause it fails to take into account social consequences.

2 Replies

@fresco,

TYPO LAST PARA "....equivalent to objects..."

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

By analogy the CONCEPT of "free-will" exists by virtue of its relationship to concepts of social responsibility and some religions. Elimination of "free-will", like the elimination of "Santa Claus" would involve social consequences.

The concept of free will is based on the idea that you can control your action. I say you can't control your action, so the concept of free will contradicts reality. It is an illusion. Of course, if you eliminate a deeply ingrained illusion it will have social consequences.

2 Replies

@litewave,

...go on then...WHAT social consequences ?......verdicts of "guilt" in courtroom trials ?....."confession" by Catholics ?....etc, etc.

1 Reply

@litewave,

NB: The word "reality" may itself only have meaning in a social context.

http://able2know.org/topic/1119-1

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

...go on then...WHAT social consequences ?......verdicts of "guilt" in courtroom trials ?....."confession" by Catholics ?....etc, etc.

Feelings of guilt and pride would be weakened. On the other hand, compassion would be strengthened, as well as understanding of human behavior which is often shrugged off by "he chose it". Understanding which actions are beneficial and which harmful might be improved by better understanding reasons for human behavior.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

NB: The word "reality" may itself only have meaning in a social context.

By reality I mean elementary logic, which is generally accepted.

1 Reply

@litewave,

litewave,

The problem here is that the "level" required to discuss these issues is beyond the one you employ. For example, a layman might think that "reality" and "logic" are interconnected, but any student on Logic 101 knows that "logic" is about the structure of arguments (aka "validity") not the empirical "truth" of statements. i.e. "validity" is "reality independent".

Now unless you are prepared to tackle this issue of "level" (perhaps by reference to the link or elsewhere) we will continue to talk past each other.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

The problem here is that the "level" required to discuss these issues is beyond the one you employ. For example, a layman might think that "reality" and "logic" are interconnected, but any student on Logic 101 knows that "logic" is about the structure of arguments (aka "validity") not the empirical "truth" of statements. i.e. "validity" is "reality independent".

I think my argument also correctly describes empirical reality. Do you think it doesn't?

1 Reply

@litewave,

Quote:

I think my argument also correctly describes empirical reality. Do you think it doesn't?

No. Your argument illustrates a view that concepts such as "free will" and "reality" have observer independent (context free) "empirical correlates". That view is called "naive realism".

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

No. Your argument illustrates a view that concepts such as "free will" and "reality" have observer independent (context free) "empirical correlates". That view is called "naive realism".

Do you need an empirical confirmation that 0<>1?

1 Reply

@litewave,

Level !

Mathematics is a metalanguage involved with internal coherence. The fact that mathematics can model and indeed evoke aspects of what we call "reality" is a separate issue to that of internal coherence and also separate to what we mean by "empiricism".

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Mathematics is a metalanguage involved with internal coherence. The fact that mathematics can model and indeed evoke aspects of what we call "reality" is a separate issue to that of internal coherence and also separate to what we mean by "empiricism".

My argument shows that the concept of free will is logically incoherent, that there is no possibility this concept could be reconciled with logic. Why do you think that such a concept can correctly describe empirical reality?

1 Reply

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know