Proof of nonexistence of free will

Free will means essentially one's actions not being totally determined, but instead having an indeterminacy element. Whoever believes in determinism must provide a guarantee that we will never know all determinants of our actions, since this would open the possibility of acting against them. Even so, it remains perfectly possible for us to know at least one determinant of our actions and act against that particular determinant, again contradicting determinism. So free will is the only coherent possibility left. It doesn't mean we do all we want the way we want: we are determined in our actions by unnumbered external factors, most of them historical, and our decisions are always externally conditioned. But they remain our decisions. In the end, determinism is just an attempt of regarding each one of us as a totally predictable external object, as if one could be just an external object to oneself. Such is the most profound problem with determinism: self-alienation, of which the most regretful consequence is irresponsibility.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus

That was the wrong answer.
A correct answer would be: Yes, I see that I am full of ****. Sorry Cyracuz, for not warning you beforehand that I am mentally retarded and have no sense of decency to admit to people when I have been wasting their time by being dense and unwilling to even try to understand.

There is no more I can do to communicate my point, but thank you for taking the time to prove conclusively to me that you are mentally retarded.

And just to annoy you, since you seem to take great delight in annoying others, I will ignore you for a while so that any cutting remark you are almost guaranteed to make in return will never reach me.

I have never before discussed something with someone who displayed so little respect for the people he interacts with as you do. Common courtesy is to admit, when someone shows you your error, that you have been a pig headed fool.

2 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

The only "attention" I am asking for is that you point out the particular linguistic approach you mean by that sentence. And this is the last time I will ask you for that, believe me.

Why should I, considering that you have ignored it the other 9 times I have said it? Why should this time be different? You, sir, are simply a victim of your own confusion.
You are a true child of our age, one who will not assimilate any information that isn't put directly in front of you in such a way that it becomes effortless. Go watch some TV or something.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Whoever believes in determinism must provide a guarantee that we will never know all determinants of our actions, since this would open the possibility of acting against them.

...you must be joking...
...if considering true that I am hard determined to do whatever I do and to ask or answer whatever I ask were in the hell would I have the possibility of acting against it if that very same acting against would be predicted to happen or not happen ???
...you fail to present any kind of clarified proof on this...your speaking your intuition but you fail to actually present a direct argument either for or against...as usual...

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

guigus

That was the wrong answer.
A correct answer would be: Yes, I see that I am full of ****. Sorry Cyracuz, for not warning you beforehand that I am mentally retarded and have no sense of decency to admit to people when I have been wasting their time by being dense and unwilling to even try to understand.

There is no more I can do to communicate my point, but thank you for taking the time to prove conclusively to me that you are mentally retarded.

And just to annoy you, since you seem to take great delight in annoying others, I will ignore you for a while so that any cutting remark you are almost guaranteed to make in return will never reach me.

I have never before discussed something with someone who displayed so little respect for the people he interacts with as you do. Common courtesy is to admit, when someone shows you your error, that you have been a pig headed fool.

Oh, please, ignore me for a while. Or for long, if possible.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
The only "attention" I am asking for is that you point out the particular linguistic approach you mean by that sentence. And this is the last time I will ask you for that, believe me.

Why should I, considering that you have ignored it the other 9 times I have said it? Why should this time be different? You, sir, are simply a victim of your own confusion.
You are a true child of our age, one who will not assimilate any information that isn't put directly in front of you in such a way that it becomes effortless. Go watch some TV or something.

That's enough to me, please find another one to discuss your point OK?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
Whoever believes in determinism must provide a guarantee that we will never know all determinants of our actions, since this would open the possibility of acting against them.

...you must be joking...
...if considering true that I am hard determined to do whatever I do and to ask or answer whatever I ask were in the hell would I have the possibility of acting against it if that very same acting against would be predicted to happen or not happen ???
...you fail to present any kind of clarified proof on this...your speaking your intuition but you fail to actually present a direct argument either for or against...as usual...

The argument was already given: if you knew you would do something, then what would prevent you from actively avoiding to do it?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...if considering true that I am hard determined to do whatever I do and to ask or answer whatever I ask were in the hell would I have the possibility of acting against it if that very same acting against would be predicted to happen or not happen ???

To rephrase you: if considering true that 2 + 2 = 5, then how in the hell could it be possible that 2 + 2 = 4?

In other words: reasserting your premises does not solve the problems they create.

1 Reply

@guigus,

LOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL... Mr. Green

that one got me knock down !

If it was the case that 2+2=5 then 2+2=5 what else ?
Likewise if it was the case that I had knowledge and chose to not act given predicted that would be my choice why would I need to act if I necessarily would not want to ???...My choosing not to act would be conform to my will which in turn would conform to the circumstances which originate it...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Since the discussion has ended (and fortunately he/she's no longer listening), let's have some fun:

Cyracuz wrote:

guigus

That was the wrong answer.

Then B! Letter B!

Cyracuz wrote:

A correct answer would be: Yes, I see that I am full of ****.

No, that's only my shoes. These damn dogs...

Cyracuz wrote:

Sorry Cyracuz, for not warning you beforehand that I am mentally retarded and have no sense of decency to admit to people when I have been wasting their time by being dense and unwilling to even try to understand.

Sorry, but mentally retarded people cannot read.

Cyracuz wrote:

There is no more I can do to communicate my point, [...]

You could start by getting a point to communicate...

Cyracuz wrote:

[...] but thank you for taking the time to prove conclusively to me that you are mentally retarded.

And thank you for proving conclusively to me that free will does not exist. Ops! Sorry, I forgot you didn't.

Cyracuz wrote:

And just to annoy you, since you seem to take great delight in annoying others, I will ignore you for a while so that any cutting remark you are almost guaranteed to make in return will never reach me.

Did I succeeded in annoying you? Did I? You swear?

Cyracuz wrote:

I have never before discussed something with someone who displayed so little respect for the people he interacts with as you do.

You didn't? I did.

Cyracuz wrote:

Common courtesy is to admit, when someone shows you your error, that you have been a pig headed fool.

We have an agreement!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

LOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL... that one got me knock down !

If it was the case that 2+2=5 then 2+2=5 what else ?
Likewise if it was the case that I had knowledge and chose to not act given predicted that would be my choice why would I need to act if I necessarily would not want to ???...My choosing not to act would be conform to my will which in turn would conform to the circumstances which originate it...

It was not "if it was the case that 2+2=5," but rather "if considering true that 2+2=5." Considering something to be such and such is not always the same as that something being such and such. Your considering events to be totally determined by some cause does not make them so. If you suppose them to be fully determined by that cause, and if then you consider a situation in which you know such a determinant, as well as its outcome, then you are in a position of being able to act differently, which calls determinism into question. In other words: your knowing the determinant of your actions and its necessary outcome gives you the opportunity to act contrarily to that knowledge, contradicting it. And such a contradiction cannot be used in favor of determinism, by asserting it wouldn't be possible for you to act against what is predetermined, since it is that predetermination, combined with your knowledge of it, that brings up the contradiction in the first place.

1 Reply

@guigus,

My knowing that I like chocolate and coffee ice cream does not make me chose either way even if the usual determinant to eat them is that both taste good...although of course there will be an actual state of affairs someday around in which one of them gets to be my favourite choice for the time being provided there will be good reason to it and that I better be well damn aware on why at the time of choosing...my willing being determined beyond my knowledge does not amount to say that I don´t know why I am choosing what I am choosing...the reason I know of my choosing is not the reason I don´t know of my willing...that being of course a FINAL reason...

0 Replies

@guigus,

Yeh, I couldn't resist, because in some twisted sense of the word this is fun. Twisted Evil

Quote:

And thank you for proving conclusively to me that free will does not exist. Ops! Sorry, I forgot you didn't.

That's right, I didn't. I have simply been repeating the same thing, and here it is again.

1. We could perhaps achieve a much clearer understanding of the connections between exterior forces and our ability to act and make choices than by calling it free will/determinism.

2. Another way to say that would be that it may be the case that we need a better linguistic approach to fully account for the relation between our ability to act and the natural restrictions placed upon that ability.

3. And yet another way to say it would be that the linguistic approach of free will/determinism appears to yield more confusion than clarification when contrasted to modern ideas of science, psychology and philosophy.

That's three ways to communicate my point.

Oh, and before that I said that free will is an idea about relationships. Both the idea and the relationships it attempts to give a clear understanding of are as insubstantial as a unicorn, yet they clearly exist.
What you are saying when you say that free will doesn't exist is that the idea doesn't describe the relationships it attempts to describe. And the worst part is that I would agree with that, which is exactly why I think -----> (see 1, 2, or 3)

And to all this you have only presented irrelevant arguments. But I won't ask you to do more of that.

Instead, I think I want to think about free will for a bit.
The idea isn't overall confusing.
There is always a choice. Determinism never touches choice, merely provides the scenario in which choice operates. Even if you were completely restrained and waiting for the executioner's axe to drop, there is the choice. You can chose to accept it or rage against it in despair.
And your will is the power by which you make your choice. This will wouldn't be able to make any choice if it couldn't do it in a previously established context. (Predetermined).
And the other way around, if we didn't have this will, this experience that some part of how reality unfolds depends on us... If we didn't have this, and you were hit by a falling branch, for instance... You would not be able to know if that was something that happened to you or if it was something you did. If we didn't have the idea of this power within us that is unrestricted by external events, "external events" would be indistinguishable from "internal events".

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Yeh, I couldn't resist, because in some twisted sense of the word this is fun.

Without insults, yes, it is.

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
And thank you for proving conclusively to me that free will does not exist. Ops! Sorry, I forgot you didn't.

That's right, I didn't. I have simply been repeating the same thing, and here it is again.

Let us give it a shot...

Cyracuz wrote:

1. We could perhaps achieve a much clearer understanding of the connections between exterior forces and our ability to act and make choices than by calling it free will/determinism.

So you are proposing a change in terminology?

Cyracuz wrote:

2. Another way to say that would be that it may be the case that we need a better linguistic approach to fully account for the relation between our ability to act and the natural restrictions placed upon that ability.

Our ability to act can have an element of indetermination or not, that is, it can be free or not. And its total determination by external causes includes all kind of determinants, not only natural ones: there are social determinants, mathematical determinants, and so on. Your formulation of the problem is confusing.

Cyracuz wrote:

3. And yet another way to say it would be that the linguistic approach of free will/determinism appears to yield more confusion than clarification when contrasted to modern ideas of science, psychology and philosophy.

Have you ever considered that perhaps it is your understanding of the terms "freedom" and "determinacy" that is confusing?

Cyracuz wrote:

That's three ways to communicate my point.

If you indeed have a point to communicate, then you just didn't do it yet. To do it, you must show why the concepts of freedom and determinacy are flawed, which is what you are saying, as also formulate an entirely new problem, since the problem of free will -- which has a very long tradition -- is very much about the tension between determination and freedom (at the beginning, you were saying that we cannot speak meaningfully about free will, and now you are saying that we cannot talk meaningfully about free will using the concept of free will. That's not much of a change to me).

Cyracuz wrote:

Oh, and before that I said that free will is an idea about relationships. Both the idea and the relationships it attempts to give a clear understanding of are as insubstantial as a unicorn, yet they clearly exist.

Sorry, but "an idea about relationships" is much more vague than "free will," so I stick with the latter.

Cyracuz wrote:

What you are saying when you say that free will doesn't exist is that the idea doesn't describe the relationships it attempts to describe. And the worst part is that I would agree with that, which is exactly why I think -----> (see 1, 2, or 3)

I didn't say that free will doesn't exist, you did. My arguments go in the direction of supporting freedom and indeterminacy, despite recognizing the constraints of all kind of determinants.

Cyracuz wrote:

And to all this you have only presented irrelevant arguments. But I won't ask you to do more of that.

Even if you find my arguments irrelevant, you should show why this is so, as also present your own arguments, which you didn't so far: simply denying any validity to the discussion that has been going so far is not yet presenting any argument.

Cyracuz wrote:

Instead, I think I want to think about free will for a bit.

Now that's a first.

Cyracuz wrote:

Yeh, I couldn't resist, because in some twisted sense of the word this is fun.

Without insults, yes, it is.

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
And thank you for proving conclusively to me that free will does not exist. Ops! Sorry, I forgot you didn't.

That's right, I didn't. I have simply been repeating the same thing, and here it is again.

Let us give it a shot...

Cyracuz wrote:

1. We could perhaps achieve a much clearer understanding of the connections between exterior forces and our ability to act and make choices than by calling it free will/determinism.

So you are proposing a change in terminology?

Cyracuz wrote:

2. Another way to say that would be that it may be the case that we need a better linguistic approach to fully account for the relation between our ability to act and the natural restrictions placed upon that ability.

Our ability to act can have an element of indetermination or not, that is, it can be free or not. And its total determination by external causes includes all kind of determinants, not only natural ones: there are social determinants, mathematical determinants, and so on. Your formulation of the problem is confusing.

Cyracuz wrote:

3. And yet another way to say it would be that the linguistic approach of free will/determinism appears to yield more confusion than clarification when contrasted to modern ideas of science, psychology and philosophy.

Have you ever considered that perhaps it is your understanding of the terms "freedom" and "determinacy" that is confusing?

Cyracuz wrote:

That's three ways to communicate my point.

If you indeed have a point to communicate, then you just didn't do it yet. To do it, you must show why the concepts of freedom and determinacy are flawed, which is what you are saying, as also formulate an entirely new problem, since the problem of free will -- which has a very long tradition -- is very much about the tension between determination and freedom (at the beginning, you were saying that we cannot speak meaningfully about free will, and now you are saying that we cannot talk meaningfully about free will using the concept of free will. That's not much of a change to me).

Cyracuz wrote:

Oh, and before that I said that free will is an idea about relationships. Both the idea and the relationships it attempts to give a clear understanding of are as insubstantial as a unicorn, yet they clearly exist.

Sorry, but "an idea about relationships" is much more vague than "free will," so I stick with the latter.

Cyracuz wrote:

What you are saying when you say that free will doesn't exist is that the idea doesn't describe the relationships it attempts to describe. And the worst part is that I would agree with that, which is exactly why I think -----> (see 1, 2, or 3)

I didn't say that free will doesn't exist, you did. My arguments go in the direction of supporting freedom and indeterminacy, despite recognizing the constraints of all kind of determinants.

Cyracuz wrote:

And to all this you have only presented irrelevant arguments. But I won't ask you to do more of that.

Even if you find my arguments irrelevant, you should show why this is so, as also present your own arguments, which you didn't so far: simply denying any validity to the discussion that has been going so far is not yet presenting any argument.

Cyracuz wrote:

Instead, I think I want to think about free will for a bit.

Now that's a first.

Cyracuz wrote:

The idea isn't overall confusing.
There is always a choice. Determinism never touches choice, merely provides the scenario in which choice operates. Even if you were completely restrained and waiting for the executioner's axe to drop, there is the choice. You can chose to accept it or rage against it in despair.
And your will is the power by which you make your choice. This will wouldn't be able to make any choice if it couldn't do it in a previously established context. (Predetermined).
And the other way around, if we didn't have this will, this experience that some part of how reality unfolds depends on us... If we didn't have this, and you were hit by a falling branch, for instance... You would not be able to know if that was something that happened to you or if it was something you did. If we didn't have the idea of this power within us that is unrestricted by external events, "external events" would be indistinguishable from "internal events".

Wow! That was great! You can think after all! I totally subscribe this, congratulations. Your distinctions between external and internal events and the impossibility to distinguish them in a no-free-will scenario is specially good, I would just not say that our freedom "is unrestricted by external events," but rather that it is not totally destroyed by them. But despite some minor issues, we think the same, and you put it beautifully.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Have you ever considered that perhaps it is your understanding of the terms "freedom" and "determinacy" that is confusing?

Yes, I have, and found that they are not.

Quote:

Wow! That was great! You can think after all!

Yea, finally I managed to put it into a language you understand. Now I'm going to solve the problem of world hunger over my morning coffee! Wink

And here is yet another shot at the point you haven't quite taken yet:

Traditionally, the debate over free will/determinism goes along the lines that if free will is really free, that has to mean determinism is bollocks. And vice versa.

Which is why I suggested that we could perhaps get a clearer understanding from a different linguistic approach, perhaps, as you put it, a different terminology, but also perhaps just a different emphasis on the current terminology.
Because from one perspective we can say that our ability to act and choose is our command of some small part of the "universal determinism". There is determinism, but we can determine, which is precicely what has given us the impression of free will.

If we then proceed to contrast these ideas with modern philosophy and psychology, that suggest that self may not be as coherent an entity as we thought, it becomes apparent that while free will/determinism may give a fair approximation of how this is experienced by a human being, it doesn't really clarify the underlying causes and relationships that explain this experience.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Have you ever considered that perhaps it is your understanding of the terms "freedom" and "determinacy" that is confusing?

Yes, I have, and found that they are not.

Quote:
Wow! That was great! You can think after all!

Yea, finally I managed to put it into a language you understand. Now I'm going to solve the problem of world hunger over my morning coffee!

And here is yet another shot at the point you haven't quite taken yet:

Traditionally, the debate over free will/determinism goes along the lines that if free will is really free, that has to mean determinism is bollocks. And vice versa.

Which is why I suggested that we could perhaps get a clearer understanding from a different linguistic approach, perhaps, as you put it, a different terminology, but also perhaps just a different emphasis on the current terminology.
Because from one perspective we can say that our ability to act and choose is our command of some small part of the "universal determinism". There is determinism, but we can determine, which is precicely what has given us the impression of free will.

If we then proceed to contrast these ideas with modern philosophy and psychology, that suggest that self may not be as coherent an entity as we thought, it becomes apparent that while free will/determinism may give a fair approximation of how this is experienced by a human being, it doesn't really clarify the underlying causes and relationships that explain this experience.

I don't mean to offend you and get insulted again, but you are a bit confused. You went more to the point than anyone else in this forum, including me, when you said:

Quote:

[...] And the other way around, if we didn't have this [...] this experience that some part of how reality unfolds depends on us... If we didn't have this, and you were hit by a falling branch, for instance... You would not be able to know if that was something that happened to you or if it was something you did. If we didn't have the idea of this power within us that is unrestricted by external events, "external events" would be indistinguishable from "internal events".

Within the above you do two important things:

1. Identifying free will with our experience that reality depends on us: indeed, free will is essentially our experiencing both indeterminism in ourselves and our determination of the objective world.

2. If we didn't experience our own actions as both indeterminate and as determining the objective world, we wouldn't be able to distinguish our own actions from that objective world to begin with.

The second point is deep, it goes all the way to the heart of the problem: the difference between subjectivity (what we are) and objectivity (what we are not). We live in a scientific time, in which all magazines, the TV, the movies, proclaim we are external to ourselves: we are the world (we are the children). But we are not the world, and determinism is utterly incapable of capturing that difference. That's precisely what Amphiclea (as also Heidegger followers) misses in modern philosophy, despite mistakenly identifying it as a lack of pure meditation. What she (or he) misses is just our own authentic presence, not falsified by our being made objects among objects. And our difference from the world is essentially dependent on indeterminism, not because the world is determined and we are not, but rather because it is indeterminism that originates the difference between the two in the first place. Why? Because indeterminacy alone originates an immaterial element in the objective world, which is called possibility (a subjective, ideal element): without possibility not even actuality would be possible, which is essentially what all determinism forgets, hence becoming inconsistent. And without such a subjective, ideal element, we become impossible: all we get is dead objectivity, which is not even capable of true determinacy.

Another thing: freedom does not necessarily mean to suppress determinacy. Not all indeterminism is absolute indeterminism: true indeterminism recognizes determinism and indeterminism as dependent on each other, as you partially pointed out in your previous post.

1 Reply

@guigus,

I am not sure how to respond. Thinking in these terms doesn't really clarify anything for me.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I am not sure how to respond. Thinking in these terms doesn't really clarify anything for me.

Isn't it clear for you that actuality needs possibility? Just as possibility needs indeterminacy? Of course that's not an answer for all questions -- that's not even a conceptual framework: mine is presented elsewhere. That's only a start, a set of initial recognitions:

1. Without possibility, actuality becomes impossible, since any actual being must remain possible, or it ceases to be an actuality.

2. Without indeterminacy, whatever is possible must already be actual, so there is no longer possibility as distinct from actuality, by which actuality ceases to exist as well, since it always depends on possibility as distinct from it.

Even if this does not "clarify things" to you, isn't it pretty clear in itself?

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus

As I see it, these are functions of language and the meaning we attribute to words.
Sure we can say that anything that actually comes to be had to be possible, or it would never come to be.
But we have often enough seen or heard of things that were impossible, only they weren't. Sometimes we didn't know something was possible until something happens that shows us that is was possible after all...

But the main point here is choice. I am not sure how big an impact our ability to make choices has on our perception, and therefore on reality.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

guigus

As I see it, these are functions of language and the meaning we attribute to words.

As anything you say.

Cyracuz wrote:

Sure we can say that anything that actually comes to be had to be possible, or it would never come to be.

That's not what I said: I said that anything that is actual must remain possible -- if it ceases to be possible, then it also ceases to be actual.

Cyracuz wrote:

But we have often enough seen or heard of things that were impossible, only they weren't. Sometimes we didn't know something was possible until something happens that shows us that is was possible after all...

Once again, my point is: if it is now actual, then it must remain, at the same time, possible, otherwise it ceases to be actual, so your objection does not apply. Besides, as you put it yourself, knowing something to be actual immediately forces you to consider it as also possible, which just shows that an actuality depends on its own possibility as different from it: even if the possibility of something did not exist before the actuality of that something -- either by not existing itself or by our ignoring it -- still it must exist simultaneously to it.

Cyracuz wrote:

But the main point here is choice. I am not sure how big an impact our ability to make choices has on our perception, and therefore on reality.

Choice is a derived concept: the fundamental concepts are possibility, actuality, and indeterminacy (or determinacy) -- if you try to solve the free will conundrum without confronting these fundamental concepts, you will run in circles, forever.

1 Reply

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know