Why I don't believe in 'free will'

@hue-man,

hue-man;66416 wrote:

I don't think he's trying to get atheists to call themselves something else. Brights is just the name of the movement. He uses the word atheist to refer to himself all of the time.

Well I heard him say how he doesn't like the word atheist though because of connotations that thend stem from it (at least for a lot of people) - it often seems to mean someone trying to 'stamp out religion', etc.

I've heard that he's trying to use 'Bright' as a word for atheist just as the word 'Gay' has come to mean homosexual - that's what the movement is about I believe?
[/COLOR][/COLOR]
[quote]Are you an indeterminist because of quantum mechanics? Indeterminacy in quantum mechanics can be explained by the uncertainty principle. I don't believe that there's anything indeterministic about the epistemic limitations of quantum mechanics. [/quote]

Well I don't really know anything about Quantum Mechanics, so if you do I'd be pleased to hear some about it. I've just heard that Quantum Mechanics supports indeterminism, etc, etc - I don't really know anything about it.

My point is that whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic, while there is evidence of freedom, of avoidability, of evitability (of non-inevitable things, non-unavoidable, of evitable things, avoidable things) - there is no evidence that our own thoughts and decisions can be willy chosen.

There is evidence that we 'have decisions' and 'make choices'. But not that we have choice in that - I mean we can think "I think I'll do X" but there's no evidence we get to choose that thought....which leads to the action.

Because if we control our actions with our brain then what do we control our brains with? They're on auto-pilot right?

I mean if there's a part of the brain that chooses thoughts then what controls that part? Isn't that automatic then? How far can you go? Where's the actual evidence that we can voluntarly choose what we do?

We can believe we do. We can choose things and say 'I chose that', and call it choosing. But whether it's determined or not, if it isn't determined - where's the evidence we get to choose that? Unpredictable does not equate to 'free will'.

Quote:

Remember that nothing is inevitable.

The future itself is by definition. And some things are and some things aren't.

It depends. As Dennett says, to paraphrase: If a spear is thrown at you then that's evitable, that's avoidable, particularly if you're a good spear avoider. Random lightning bolts targeted at you, that's not avoidable - if that happens (and it's aimed accurately at you) you have no chance of avoiding that. That's inevitable.

Because the definition of inevitable actually is: Unavoidable. Some things aren't avoidable, others are.

The future itself is inevitable - is unavoidable - by definition whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic - there's gonna be a future. That's not avoidable.

What you have to talk about is particular possible futures or situations and whether they're avoidable or not by whatever agent(s).

Quote:

The person could have done something different, and he knew that there would be consequences if he was caught.

But where's the evidence that he can choose that mental attitude of his? Does he choose to do it anyway despite the fact he knows the consquences? As far as I'm concerned there's no evidence for that. There's no evidence for behavioral free will - you don't choose you are and you're atittude. He may be aware of what he's doing, but does he choose that attitude and behavior, voluntarily?

Quote:

The only impact that determinism should have on law is that criminals should be treated more like patients than wild animals that have no 'soul'.

Pretty much yeah. Seems about right. I know of no evidence that they can choose who they are or what they do -voluntarily.

They could have done otherwise, yeah. But could they really have a choice in what they ended up doing?

Quote:

Everything has a cause and a reason whether it be justified or not. The reconceptualization of free will is still free will, albeit a weak conception of free will.

Yeah. It's confusing to what most think of 'free will' but I've been watching some more Dennett videos and I'm certainly beginning to like the idea. Because despite the fact it's totally different to the normal definition, the normal definition as Dennett says is gratuitous and you can get all the meaning with his defintion.

The normal definition is gratuitious because believing it is not needed at all for moral responsibility, it doesn't give you any more powers, any more abilites, any more evitability (avoidability) - and there's no evidence of the more common 'normal' definition of 'Free-Will' anyway - no evidence for 'behavioral free will'.

Satan;66421 wrote:

If I can't blame people for committing crimes then how can you blame me for punishing people? If it's wrong to blame then blaming others for blame is just as wrong.

Well I wouldn't blame you. I just think it would be better if you didn't.

If I don't blame people (as if they can help it) because I don't believe in 'free will' then of course I wouldn't blame people for blaming people. But that doesn't mean I'd think it's right.

EvF

1 Reply

@EvidenceVsFaith,

EvidenceVsFaith;66878 wrote:

Well I heard him say how he doesn't like the word atheist though because of connotations that thend stem from it (at least for a lot of people) - it often seems to mean someone trying to 'stamp out religion', etc.

I've heard that he's trying to use 'Bright' as a word for atheist just as the word 'Gay' has come to mean homosexual - that's what the movement is about I believe?

Well I don't really know anything about Quantum Mechanics, so if you do I'd be pleased to hear some about it. I've just heard that Quantum Mechanics supports indeterminism, etc, etc - I don't really know anything about it.

My point is that whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic, while there is evidence of freedom, of avoidability, of evitability (of non-inevitable things, non-unavoidable, of evitable things, avoidable things) - there is no evidence that our own thoughts and decisions can be willy chosen.

There is evidence that we 'have decisions' and 'make choices'. But not that we have choice in that - I mean we can think "I think I'll do X" but there's no evidence we get to choose that thought....which leads to the action.

Because if we control our actions with our brain then what do we control our brains with? They're on auto-pilot right?

I mean if there's a part of the brain that chooses thoughts then what controls that part? Isn't that automatic then? How far can you go? Where's the actual evidence that we can voluntarly choose what we do?

We can believe we do. We can choose things and say 'I chose that', and call it choosing. But whether it's determined or not, if it isn't determined - where's the evidence we get to choose that? Unpredictable does not equate to 'free will'.

The future itself is by definition. And some things are and some things aren't.

It depends. As Dennett says, to paraphrase: If a spear is thrown at you then that's evitable, that's avoidable, particularly if you're a good spear avoider. Random lightning bolts targeted at you, that's not avoidable - if that happens (and it's aimed accurately at you) you have no chance of avoiding that. That's inevitable.

Because the definition of inevitable actually is: Unavoidable. Some things aren't avoidable, others are.

The future itself is inevitable - is unavoidable - by definition whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic - there's gonna be a future. That's not avoidable.

What you have to talk about is particular possible futures or situations and whether they're avoidable or not by whatever agent(s).

But where's the evidence that he can choose that mental attitude of his? Does he choose to do it anyway despite the fact he knows the consquences? As far as I'm concerned there's no evidence for that. There's no evidence for behavioral free will - you don't choose you are and you're atittude. He may be aware of what he's doing, but does he choose that attitude and behavior, voluntarily?

Pretty much yeah. Seems about right. I know of no evidence that they can choose who they are or what they do -voluntarily.

They could have done otherwise, yeah. But could they really have a choice in what they ended up doing?

Yeah. It's confusing to what most think of 'free will' but I've been watching some more Dennett videos and I'm certainly beginning to like the idea. Because despite the fact it's totally different to the normal definition, the normal definition as Dennett says is gratuitous and you can get all the meaning with his defintion.

The normal definition is gratuitious because believing it is not needed at all for moral responsibility, it doesn't give you any more powers, any more abilites, any more evitability (avoidability) - and there's no evidence of the more common 'normal' definition of 'Free-Will' anyway - no evidence for 'behavioral free will'.

The future is only a possible set of circumstances, and those circumstances can be avoided if the agent chooses a different action.

I'm pretty much with henry quirk on this. I believe that free will, in the sense that we're speaking of it, stinks of theology, and that all of this talk about us not having control over our behavior or actions is a result of excessive scientific reductionism. I am my brain, I am an agent, and I control what I do. I am the autopilot, and I determine what I will or will not do. I've changed my behavior throughout my life and no one else coerced me, and so I can positively say that my will is my will, and in the absense of coercion, it is free.

0 Replies

@EvidenceVsFaith,

The term "free will" is an illusory term because will is ALWAYS free. If someone put a gun to your head and said "do what I say," you still have the choice of doing or not doing what he says. Your will is still free to choose either way. Will is the ability to decide PERIOD!

I tried atheism. I could not find support for the idea of a deliberate intellect within the framework of the cause-and-effect system of a random universe. Denying the deliberate intellect is not possible because denial is a deliberate action, and you must deny your own deliberate capacity for decision making when doing so. In other words, you are using the faculty you are invalidating.

There are no mechanical forces, structures, or laws in nature or man-made that produce or cause the capacity or ability of deliberate decision making. The best A.I. machines in existence do not have the ability to produce a deliberate decision because all of it's activity is still based on programming. Decisions based on programming are mechanical, and are not volitional.

Even genetic code is a form of programming, and any behavior impulses from it can be overridden by the intellect. if this were not true, then the world would be doomed by a huge array of potential destructive and reckless behavior, and by virtue of the genetic knowledge behind this potential we would be bound to develop political rules that would justify acts of genocide on a large range of humans, including race deficiencies. Since man does have will, and there are no measurable techniques or devices that can measure will itself, then the conclusion is that will comes from a source external to or is unbounded by the physical universe. Since it would require a will to produce a will, then the ultimate will of the universe must be the source of all will. If I'm not mistaken, I believe this is historically referred to as God!

More awareness shows less will: As awareness increases, it shows the mechanical influences that have gone into the preceding decisions in life and therefor show how we had less will than we thought. However, the increases in awareness do increase the will. Increases in will are less mechanical. However, knowing the next level in will is not possible until the next level of awareness is achieved. This implies and eternal progression of will and awareness.

If there are greater levels of will and awareness, then this implies a degree of mechanicalness of the preceding level. Mechanicalness has it's qualities solely based on the degree of sleep of the will, therefor the degree of our lack of will is directly proportional to our degree of sleep. Hence, our first and foremost goal in life should be to become self-aware, aka seek ye first the kingdom of heaven.

Since will does exist and it's nature is the opposite of mechanicalness, ultimate will must have ultimate control over all mechanicalness. Since the absolute created all wills in the universe, this then implies our will is the same as the absolute's will, which implies we still have a will because we share the same will of the absolute. We are created in the image of our creator.

If random universe is right, then it is randomly producing atheist and God believers. How are you ever going to prove the validity of one or the other? The random universe has already produced them therefor wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that it is laughing at the people who believe it is a non-intelligent existentiality?

1 Reply

@iamsource,

iamsource;67043 wrote:

The term "free will" is an illusory term because will is ALWAYS free. If someone put a gun to your head and said "do what I say," you still have the choice of doing or not doing what he says. Your will is still free to choose either way. Will is the ability to decide PERIOD!

If a person is coerced then their will is not free. This does not mean that they don't have a choice. This simply means that they have been forced against their personal desires by the threat of harm; because of nature's law of self-preservation, we cannot hold a person responsible if they are being coerced by the will of another agent. In terms of social ethics or political philosophy, free will is the will of an agent in the absence of coercion.

1 Reply

@EvidenceVsFaith,

Choice does not imply free choice.

I say that: You have options but there's no evidence that you have any option over which option you opt for

Dennett's Pseudo Free-Will that's even compatible with determinism is the most there's evidence for (as far as I know??)

I know of no evidence whatsoever that what we are doing we can decide on - we're already doing it. The 'deciding' is part of 'what we're doing'.

So if 'deciding' is part of what we are doing then how do we choose the deciding? I know of no evidence for any extra level where we control what we control and what we end up deciding upon - the 'control' the 'deciding' is all there is, it's automatic. There is avoidability, there is evitability is all - and that kind of 'pseudo' 'Free Will' is pseudo; in the sense that is compatible with determinism!

There is freedom, there is evitability in both a deterministic universe and an indetermisitic universe - there are 'options' and there is 'opting' in both cases...but I know of no evidence in either case, that we have any option over which option we opt for - no 'Free Will' in that sense, no evidence for behavioral 'Free Will'.

There is 'Freedom' as in there is evitability, there is avoidability.

Some things are avoidable some things are unavoidable, yes - but 'Free Will' how many think of it? I know of no evidence for that. No evidence for the truth of that whatsoever (no evidence that we have 'any option over which option we opt for').

0 Replies

@EvidenceVsFaith,

Satan;66403 wrote:

You just said there is no difference. How can we have the same experiences yet in one case be in control and in the other case not be?

Because in one case we control our own actions and in the other we are conscious, complex biological robots that don't have any choice in our own actions - we just believe we do.

And since there's no reason to believe in free self-control in the rest of physics, why would it be any different with us? The fact we commonly believe our own actions doesn't mean we do. That's not evidence.

It may look the same but the point is there's no reason to believe we have control. Whether it's common to do so or not.

There is evidence that you 'make decisions' but not that you choose which decisions you make. So you might call it 'making decisions' but there's no evidence that you have any 'free will' on the matter.

There's only evidence that 'you control them' in the sense that you do things and say you control them.
Like a conductor who conducts an orchestra and says "I'm conducting this orchestra" - there's evidence that he's conducting the orchestra. But not any evidence that he has any choice in the matter. It's all physics. So there's no evidence he's really controlling himself (as in controlling himself, with himself, consciously and voluntarily)

So when you think "I'm deciding to do X" - there's evidence that you are 'deciding' as in the thought process in your brain is happening that we call 'making decisions'. But there's not any evidence that you have any choice in the matter of what decision you make, in what you are deciding. It's all physics. So there's no evidence you're really controlling yourself (as in controlling yourself, with yourself, consciously and voluntarily).

There's no evidence of 'self control', as in - no evidence that you are controlling your own decisions. They are part of you. You have decisions but 'you' don't get to control the decisions themselves (consciously and voluntarily). I mean, there's no reason to believe you do - there's no evidence that you do. No evidence of 'free will'.
Belief in free will of course isn't evidence of the truth of it because that's circular reasoning. And 'experience' of it tells you nothing either way, so there's still no reason to believe that it actually exists.

EvF

is your theory that we are actually only observers of ourselves? hmm...
would make a neat sci-fi story. you are saying we just stumble along doing what we would probably most likely do in a sort of mathematical probability calculation? are there variables? like when people are watching we do different things than we do alone-so not only we dont have free will, but we are controlled by random outside influences? are we like chemicals that react to different stimuli? if we could prove that is true i am not sure i would live my life any diffrent, but it is an interesting idea.

1 Reply

@hue-man,

hue-man;67107 wrote:

If a person is coerced then their will is not free. This does not mean that they don't have a choice. This simply means that they have been forced against their personal desires by the threat of harm; because of nature's law of self-preservation, we cannot hold a person responsible if they are being coerced by the will of another agent. In terms of social ethics or political philosophy, free will is the will of an agent in the absence of coercion.

You haven't been forced by anything other than your own Desire or Fear. You apply your Desire and Fear in your decision making, and you have a result of your programming. In this scenario you have given up your will to your programming, and have ceased to be responsible for your own actions. There is no such thing as a sane crime, and never has there been. Since insanity is based on unmanageable Desire and Fear, jails and prisons are full of people who are insane and those who did not do what they were blamed for doing.

Desire or Fear is not an aspect of the function of will. Will is absolutely NOTHING more than the ability to decide. Fear and Desire
are also decisions, and you are mixing other decisions into the choice for which the original options are being assessed. Decisions
based on one's prior decisions are not decisions. They are the product of justifications established within based on one's Desire/Fear
model. This shows a mechanical agent without will. Mechanical agents are asleep because they do not operate from the source of will.

Holding people responsible does not make people responsible. It is simply blame, and blame yields no useful product for civilization.
This is why deterrents fail, and will always fail, and by adhering to them we doom our children to experience the ignorant and sick
psychosis that has ravaged civilization for so long. We are no closer to peace and sanity on planet Earth than at anytime before. In
fact it is even worse, and our, so called, justice systems have done little to improve conditions for civilization.

Nature doesn't have a law of self-preservation. Think about what NATURE is... It is your awareness observing, defining, labeling, and
sorting the behavior of perception. This is nothing more than FEAR based motivation in the CONSCIOUSNESS of the observer. If NATURE
was some kind of force within the universe and had this law, then you would not be able to choose between options of Fear and No Fear.

1 Reply

@salima,

I think the the question of Free Will revolves around what is meant by Free Will.

I see myself as a navigator. I can go this way or that way, but whichever way I choose, I will be influenced by everything else around me. So I cannot determine the results but I can move in a certain direction.

I like to use analogies. A skipper of a ship can choose to sail in one direction or another. Should he encounter a huge wave, he may choose to move directly into it, or he may run away from it, or he may choose to move around it. Whichever direction he chooses, he will have to deal with all of the influences (water, wind, rain, etc.) that surround him.

Can he control the results of his actions? No. It is a intersection of everything. Can he choose to move in a different direction? Yes. That is what is called the Zhi (Will) in Chinese metaphysics.

Rich
MeaningofLifePhilosophy.com

0 Replies

@EvidenceVsFaith,

EvidenceVsFaith;66408 wrote:

There is evidence that you 'make decisions' but not that you choose which decisions you make. So you might call it 'making decisions' but there's no evidence that you have any 'free will' on the matter.

What do you call EVIDENCE?

How do you define EVIDENCE?

If you post a reply to this, will it be evidence to you that you have a choice in doing so?

2 Replies

@iamsource,

iamsource;67150 wrote:

What do you call EVIDENCE?

How do you define EVIDENCE?

If you post a reply to this, will it be evidence to you that you have a choice in doing so?

I think the concept of evidence is interesting, but so far, in the history of mankind, evidence has always been the source of wrong conclusions, in every instance. Everything is always evolving, and changing, and evidence today will ultimately be discredited some time in the future. Evidence may be comforting, but by no means is it reliable.

Rich

0 Replies

@iamsource,

iamsource;67143 wrote:

Desire or Fear is not an aspect of the function of will. Will is absolutely NOTHING more than the ability to decide. Fear and Desire are also decisions, and you are mixing other decisions into the choice for which the original options are being assessed. Decisions
based on one's prior decisions are not decisions. They are the product of justifications established within based on one's Desire/Fear
model. This shows a mechanical agent without will. Mechanical agents are asleep because they do not operate from the source of will.

Will is not simply the ability to decide. Will stems from natural appetites and intentions, and free will is the ability to make those decisions in the absence of coercion. Mechanical agents are awake, and they do operate from the source of will. Everything that agents do is dependent on the will (appetites and intentions).

iamsource;67143 wrote:

Holding people responsible does not make people responsible. It is simply blame, and blame yields no useful product for civilization.

iamsource;67143 wrote:

In fact it is even worse, and our, so called, justice systems have done little to improve conditions for civilization.

Oh I beg to differ. Holding people responsible is useful because it gets dangerous people off of the street. I'm not saying that it prevents most crimes, but to say that the reward and punishment system has no utility is to ignore the fact that a serial killer keeps killing innocent people unless you lock them up. There's a neighborhood in my city that had a rise in robbery, drug dealing, and shootings until they locked up the gang that was selling the guns and drugs. That neighborhood has gotten much better since they locked those guys up.

iamsource;67143 wrote:

Nature doesn't have a law of self-preservation. Think about what NATURE is... It is your awareness observing, defining, labeling, and
sorting the behavior of perception. This is nothing more than FEAR based motivation in the CONSCIOUSNESS of the observer. If NATURE
was some kind of force within the universe and had this law, then you would not be able to choose between options of Fear and No Fear.

The use of the term law is more of a metaphor. Nature operates according to law-like functions, and self-preservation is a natural desire for all animals. Of course some animals are willing to sacrifice their well being for the well being of someone else, but self-preservation is the reason why a person is likely to succumb to coercive demands. I agree that everyone has a choice regardless of coercion, but we're talking about free will in the context of social ethics. Ethics, philosophy of law, and political philosophy are sub-fields of axiology, the study of values, and we value will in the absence of coercion. That's why we can understand if a bank teller chooses to give up the money instead of having their head blown off.

1 Reply

@hue-man,

'free will' (the phrase, not the phenomenon the phrase stands for) misleads...let's break it down

'free': who of us is 'free'?

each of us is bound by and in 'the world'...the way reality 'works' constricts and restrains, us from the 'rules' governing matter all the way down into how our genes form us and influence us each

'free' sounds nice, and may even have some weight if by 'free' we mean 'liberty' (as political construct)

but, fundamentally: none of us is 'free'

'will': what is 'will'?

i submit 'will' is another word for 'me', for 'you'...that is: when i speak of my 'will' i speak of my 'self'

so: rather than torture the phenomenon to fit the placeholder ('free will') why not simply study the phenomenon (the chooser) itself and forget for the moment what to call it...in this way: useless linguistic cul de sacs (like those foisted up by certain folks who will remain 'nameless'...HA!) are avoided and we can get to the meat of things

1 Reply

@henry quirk,

henry quirk;67339 wrote:

'free will' (the phrase, not the phenomenon the phrase stands for) misleads...let's break it down

'free': who of us is 'free'?

each of us is bound by and in 'the world'...the way reality 'works' constricts and restrains, us from the 'rules' governing matter all the way down into how our genes form us and influence us each

I agree. The debate over the centuries, for some reason, became constrained by the notion that either you are entirely able to do and get what you want, or you everything is entirely determined for you. I think this is an unnecessary constraint.

Another alternative, is that we try to direct ourselves to some place (like a good captain of a sail boat), but we are constrained by the waves and winds around us and our own skills.

I believe we have Will - that which moves us to stay alive and explore. But I don't think we can get anything we want, nor do I think everyone else can have their way over me. If someone tries to take my wallet out of my pocket, they will get some resistance from my Will, and vice-versa.

Life, I believe, is a compromise of many different Minds, or consciousness, or whatever you want to call what is living and exploring.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

as i wrote over in the 'how would you choose which 'existential imperative' to adopt?' thread...

what my experience tells me: 'I' -- as a discrete, autonomous, phenomenon calling itself 'henry quirk' -- am real...i exist autonomously 'in', but not independent 'of' the world (reality/the universe)...while part of a causal chain or chains, i also -- as agent -- initiate causal chains...i choose, deliberate, determine, as an individual existing in a deterministic (but not determined, or determining) world

...the above neatly bypasses the pesky 'free', emphasizes the real 'will', and properly assigns 'will' to the agent as function 'of' the agent

0 Replies

@iamsource,

iamsource;67150 wrote:

What do you call EVIDENCE?

Evidence.

Quote:

How do you define EVIDENCE?

Something that gives an indication to the truth of a belief, gives credence to a belief

Quote:

If you post a reply to this, will it be evidence to you that you have a choice in doing so?

No. How on earth would that be evidence? I can reply to this and say 'this is what I chose to do' and I may have been able to do it another way too (if this universe is indeed indeterministic) - but I know of no evidence that I am 'making myself do this' or that I am 'choosing to choose this' - or that if I can do it another way I have a choice in which way I go.

This was an option and I opted for it, yes - but there's no evidence that I had any option overopting for that option.

IOW - just because we define it as 'choosing' when we do something doesn't mean it is true that we have any choice in the matter when we are doing it.

I have 'chose to reply' you might say, but if by that you just mean I considered doing it and did it, fine. But if you mean I had a choice in that consideration of doing it - there's no evidence for that that I know of. The fact I 'make decisions' does not imply I have a choice over the decision I make. As far as I'm concerned it's basically just controlled by the chemicals in my brain etc, whether I believe 'I have a choice or not' - it's really just automatic so I don't have a choice in that sense. Just freedom as in 'avoidability'. Pseudo 'free will' at best, compatibilism - 'free will' that's compatible with a determinsitic universe too!

How do I know what's evidence of free will? Well I do not - I have no idea what that would look like! I know of no evidence for "God" either, and I have no idea what evidence for "God" would look like. But I expect so see some, some indication that he actually exists...first!

Whether there can be evidence or not, whether it's possible or not. I need to see some before I believe.

I think the idea that "we control ourselves" to be kind of bizzare in the sense that the part of us that is thinking that is our brain. So IOW that translates to "We control our brain" - but our brains as I said, is the part of us thinking that. So that translates to "Our brain controls itself". So how does the brain control 'us' if the 'us' that is thinking that is the brain?

The brain gets to choose what the brain thinks and decides on then? How? Where's the evidence for that?

As far as I know the brain just thinks stuff and decides stuff and is thinking and deciding; and it's highly complex - I know of no evidence that there's this extra layer where it decides upon itself! It already is decided and has no choice in the matter as far as I know. It just is! And the rest of us responds to our brain, and our brain responds to the rest of us.

EvF

2 Replies

@EvidenceVsFaith,

EvidenceVsFaith;67475 wrote:

As far as I'm concerned it's basically just controlled by the chemicals in my brain etc, whether I believe 'I have a choice or not' - it's really just automatic so I don't have a choice in that sense.
EvF

Sounds rather boring, but if that's the way you want to see your life, that's the way you want to see it. But, I try to make it a little more exciting (evidence).

I don't see myself controlling myself or others, or any other things. Just setting course, moving in a certain direction (like a sailor) and navigating through the waves of life. I believe it is easy to understand oneself, if you just observe what is around you. We are all navigating, as our skills allow.

Rich

1 Reply

@EvidenceVsFaith,

If free will does not exist,
then how come the word has such a universal meaning in all languages in the world?

Its interesting how atheists nearly always do not believe in free will, and Theists nearly always do.

I think the mistake the person who started the thread makes, is to equate randomness with freedom.

The way I see it there are three intrinsic essences to the universe :
order, randomness and freedom.

Order is easy to understand,
and randomness is chaos.
(by this i do not mean complex order that appears as chaos)

Freedom is essentially a creative force.

From where did the Big Bang come?
Why does the universe exist?

At some point we have to realise that if the universe had perfect order to it, then it would be static. Nothing new could ever happen, the universe would not be expanding. In order for the universe to expand, there has to be a net increase in the amount of space-time-energy-matter (STEM) in it, or it would not be expanding.

Where does this STEM come from?
How could it just arise out of less STEM?

....

If we look at quantum mechanics, we see INDETERMINISM, not DETERMINISM.

So our minds, by being formed on the sub-atomic level, have every capacity to be indeterministic as regards the laws of physics. (Read Roger Penrose, Frijtof Capra)

Now Freedom is a perculiar and slippery concept because it appears to be both deterministic and indeterminsitic at the same time.

If the universe was purely determined it would not be expanding, but static.
And if it was purely indeterministic, it would not have order to it.

So in order for us to even vaguely comprehend what the relationship between determinism and indeterminism is, we must have within us an essence which actually encompasses both these ideas.

Think in terms of sets.
The set X comprises at least both chaos and order.

If chaos and order were intrinsically separate form each other, we would not be able to have such a thing as set X.

Seeing as though we are having a discussion with both chaos and order, the means by which we have this discussion must be greater than two of the elements in that discussion.

So chaos and order are unified into a gestault which is greater than the sum of the parts : it comprises both essences, and more.

So what could be order + chaos + Z, other than freedom?

...

We are either free to think, or we may choose to stop thinking.

This is what Shakespeare meant when he said
'To be, or not to be, that is the only question'.

Sorry if this was not as precise as I had hoped it would be.

0 Replies

@EvidenceVsFaith,

EvidenceVsFaith;67475 wrote:

Evidence.

Something that gives an indication to the truth of a belief, gives credence to a belief

No. How on earth would that be evidence? I can reply to this and say 'this is what I chose to do' and I may have been able to do it another way too (if this universe is indeed indeterministic) - but I know of no evidence that I am 'making myself do this' or that I am 'choosing to choose this' - or that if I can do it another way I have a choice in which way I go.

This was an option and I opted for it, yes - but there's no evidence that I had any option overopting for that option.

IOW - just because we define it as 'choosing' when we do something doesn't mean it is true that we have any choice in the matter when we are doing it.

I have 'chose to reply' you might say, but if by that you just mean I considered doing it and did it, fine. But if you mean I had a choice in that consideration of doing it - there's no evidence for that that I know of. The fact I 'make decisions' does not imply I have a choice over the decision I make. As far as I'm concerned it's basically just controlled by the chemicals in my brain etc, whether I believe 'I have a choice or not' - it's really just automatic so I don't have a choice in that sense. Just freedom as in 'avoidability'. Pseudo 'free will' at best, compatibilism - 'free will' that's compatible with a determinsitic universe too!

How do I know what's evidence of free will? Well I do not - I have no idea what that would look like! I know of no evidence for "God" either, and I have no idea what evidence for "God" would look like. But I expect so see some, some indication that he actually exists...first!

Whether there can be evidence or not, whether it's possible or not. I need to see some before I believe.

I think the idea that "we control ourselves" to be kind of bizzare in the sense that the part of us that is thinking that is our brain. So IOW that translates to "We control our brain" - but our brains as I said, is the part of us thinking that. So that translates to "Our brain controls itself". So how does the brain control 'us' if the 'us' that is thinking that is the brain?

The brain gets to choose what the brain thinks and decides on then? How? Where's the evidence for that?

As far as I know the brain just thinks stuff and decides stuff and is thinking and deciding; and it's highly complex - I know of no evidence that there's this extra layer where it decides upon itself! It already is decided and has no choice in the matter as far as I know. It just is! And the rest of us responds to our brain, and our brain responds to the rest of us.

EvF

Do you believe in random events?do you think the whole of existence is determined?If you honestly believe that your decisions are formed by previous events and there is no true self will ,would you say the BB determined everything?

1 Reply

@xris,

evf wrote, in part: "The fact I 'make decisions' does not imply I have a choice over the decision I make. As far as I'm concerned it's basically just controlled by the chemicals in my brain"

you describe a duality or plurality for which there is no evidence: that is, there is 'you', and there are chemicals in your brain, and that your brain (and those chemicals) are somehow NOT 'you'

you ARE the flesh: not just the brain, or the chemicals in the brain, but the entirety of your flesh...bone, blood, organ, and gland...all of you IS 'you'

you are a whole...a unit...a single entity

so: of course you have control (more accurately: 'ownership' or 'possession') over your decisions, because it is 'you' who perceives a circumstance; 'you' who filters that information through your 'self', and 'you' makes a choice or cluster of choices

that aspects of that choice are below your threshold of awareness doesn't make those choices 'out of your control' or alien...entirely conscious of the criteria you apply, or not, 'you' still make the choice

and again: i really wish we could do away with 'free will'...as placeholder: it's a poor choice to apply to the phenomenon of 'agency', or, 'self-efficacy', or, 'self-possession', or 'self-determination' (all these placeholders are much more on the mark, much more in keeping, with what actually happens, with what is 'real')

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;67496 wrote:

Sounds rather boring, but if that's the way you want to see your life, that's the way you want to see it. But, I try to make it a little more exciting (evidence).

I don't see myself controlling myself or others, or any other things. Just setting course, moving in a certain direction (like a sailor) and navigating through the waves of life. I believe it is easy to understand oneself, if you just observe what is around you. We are all navigating, as our skills allow.

Rich

I agree with all that. But I certainly don't find it boring I find it very interesting (which is why I created this thread) - that implication may be there fore you, the way I phrased it - but not for me.

I was merely trying to explain how there's no reason to think I can control my own brain when this "I" that I am thinking with is of course, my brain. And it's just controlled by the chemicals.

Yes I could put a 'more positive spin on it' but I don't see it as a negative thing. I'm not going to put on 'rose-tinted spectacles' - I'm going to embrace reality and that is what I personally find very uplifting.

I'm just saying that I know of no evidence that it's anything other than that. You can colour it in a more poetic way, or put it differently - I just wanted to make my point as clear as I can.

There's no evidence of 'free will' other than evitability (or avoidability) reedom in that sense.

Possible futures aren't all inevitable, some are avoidable, some are evitable. The future however, is inevitable by definition. As Dennett says, to paraphrase - the future is what's gonna happen. You can't avoid that whether i'ts determined or not - there's gonna be a future, that's inevitiable.

And also when he speaks of how people say (to paraphrase again): ' "You can't change the past but you can change the future!" - Oh really? From what to what? From what's 'gonna happen' to what's not gonna happen? The future is what's going to happen, you can't change that. You can avoid possible futures because you have freedom - but whether this is a deterministic universe or indeterministic universe, whether the universe is determined or not the future, itself - is inevitable. There's gonna be a future, you can't avoid that. It's unavoidable (which is what inevitable means of course - unavoidable).

If you want to know how I myself am doing...I am doing great, I have been very happy lately and increasingly so...one could say - even exponetional.

I don't need to tint stuff with poetry, it can be nice and poetic if I can (and if I was a good poet) and if I could 'put a more positive spin on it' but when the point I'm trying to get across is not whether someting is positive or not but whether we really have control or a matter or not, describing the fact that our thoughts and decisons come from the chemistry of the brain, etc - I find quite an accurate way of going about it.

I often find it more positive not to 'put a more positive spin on things' - because I find reality itself embracing and I find 'putting a more positive spin' to be kind of like wishful thinking, or if actually true and not wishful thinking but merely 'a more positive way of looking at the same thing' - I find such efforts gratitous sometimes anyway since, like I said - I find reality embracing anyway.

And I'd rather a negative truth than something positive that turns out to be a falsehood, anyday.

And positive thinking doesn't 'affect you positively' unless you actually believe it. And if (I'm being hypothetical here) it isn't true - then I'd rather not believe it anyway, like I said - I'd rather believe a negative truth than a positive falsehood (a placebo) anyday.

The only exception is if a placebo is the only way to save my life (or someone else's), or something to that effect, etc.

EvF

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------

henry quirk;67686 wrote:

you describe a duality or plurality for which there is no evidence: that is, there is 'you', and there are chemicals in your brain, and that your brain (and those chemicals) are somehow NOT 'you'

On the contrary. I'm saying the part of me that I am using to think "me" when I am thinking something like "I am thinking this, this is me" of course, comes form the part of me that is my brain.

I am in no way dualist. I'm a monist materialist and I believe in nothing supernatural whatsoever. Nor do I believe in an immortal soul.

Quote:

you ARE the flesh: not just the brain, or the chemicals in the brain, but the entirety of your flesh...bone, blood, organ, and gland...all of you IS 'you'

you are a whole...a unit...a single entity

Of course. And that is why I can't deliberately control it because I'm already in the process of controlling. I can't control my brain with my brain because it is already doing so, it can't change what has already been done by me (meaning by the rest of me), what has already been thought of. And where's the evidence that my brain can currently think or 'decide on' anything than what it is already currently doing?.

If it can't. Yes 'I have control' as in - I am controlling, my brain is controlling - but where's the evidence that my brain has any control over itself any real choice in its controlling? It's already controlling, it's already deciding, it's already thinking - where's the evidence that it can do otherwise? Where's the evidence that it can think differently currently to how it's currently doing...if it's already doing it?

I think it's like a waterfall, flowing. Not a big bucket that purposefully fills itself.

Quote:

so: of course you have control (more accurately: 'ownership' or 'possession') over your decisions, because it is 'you' who perceives a circumstance; 'you' who filters that information through your 'self', and 'you' makes a choice or cluster of choices

I 'control my actions' as in...I am doing stuff and I am conscious and we call that controlling. But is there any evidence that I currently control in an otherwise manner at this exact moment? I don't think so. How would I do that? How would I control right now, deliberately exactly how I'm controlling? - I'm already controlling!

Like I said: There is evidence that you 'have options' but there's no evidence that you have any option over 'which options you opt for'.

Quote:

that aspects of that choice are below your threshold of awareness doesn't make those choices 'out of your control' or alien...entirely conscious of the criteria you apply, or not, 'you' still make the choice

I 'make a choice' in the sense I do something when being aware of what I'm doing and we call that 'making a choice' - but where's the evidence that whether I can do otherwise or not, that I have a choice in which way I go in that exact moment?

and again: i really wish we could do away with 'free will'...as placeholder: it's a poor choice to apply to the phenomenon of 'agency', or, 'self-efficacy', or, 'self-possession', or 'self-determination' (all these placeholders are much more on the mark, much more in keeping, with what actually happens, with what is 'real')[/QUOTE]

We have evitability and avoidability. We have options - but like I said, I know of no evidence that we have any option over which options we opt for.

EvF

3 Replies

Why I don't believe in 'free will'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know