Is free-will an illusion?

@tomr,

You're trying to explain away something that's done repeatedly in science. What is good about science is the simple fact that it seeks truth, and will correct past mistakes when they realize it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I agree that science is able to correct itself over time. But if you claim you have realizable alternatives you are claiming that nothing is preventing you from picking those alternatives. That is an incredible assertation when you consider all the possible influences out there. The only way to know that absolutely nothing is preventing you from choosing those alternatives is to do an experiment that would recreate the exact conditions of any choice in question. I understand this would be impossible and I gave a scientific alternative to that. Whether the suggested experiment would be sufficient to prove free will exists I am not certain. But if done to some agreed upon level of accuracy, it might give some indication one way or the other that something else beside determinism is going on.

0 Replies

it is incredible such extent of hypocrisy in absolute clarity
what nothing how nothin could b involved there, freedom is not real bc evil is real as the exclusive life being one only
evil is the way of killin freedom rights everywhere and before it exists

meanin to kill freedom is dealin with else freedom constantly knowin how all is free while u insist to condition it and force it to stay still

living ur fancy about freedom of before being unexistent is also confirmin that u know how existence is only to present freedom

0 Replies

The claims that holding there to be realisable alternatives is an "incredible assertation" or that there's "no evidence that [free will] exists", are just silly. Every time a person announces an intention, they assume that they have the freedom to perform the intended act, every time instructions are given, it's assumed that the stated action can be performed, and in both cases the assumption is usually vindicated. Every day millions of school kids manage to open their books to page 37, exactly as instructed. The title of this thread, even, is an acknowledgement that we appear to have free will, how else could there be an illusion. So, our experience of the world is that we have free will, and this is obviously evidence for the reality of free will and entails that it's the denial of realisable alternatives which is the incredible assertion.
About the nonsense of exactly repeated conditions; experimental repeatability is an essential principle of science, and this is not the statement that given exactly identical conditions there is exactly one experimenter who can repeat a procedure. If the procedure is typing 01 and posting it on the internet, then this procedure can be repeated by any researcher with the ability to type, a suitable computer and internet access. It is exactly the point of experimental repeatability that other researchers in other times and places can perform the same actions. Obviously I am capable of typing 01 and have a suitable computer with an internet connection, so, equally obviously, typing 01 is an action which I can repeat, as already demonstrated. That I can repeat the given procedure is an essential principle of experimental science. I now similarly establish that typing 10 is a repeatable procedure and I have generated an option set: {01, 10}.
In an earlier post I defined "choice" and "conscious choice", I now choose a single member proper subset of my option set and make my choice set: {10}.
Thus I have made a selection from amongst realisable alternatives, by definition and guaranteed by essential principles of experimental science.
I now enact my choice and type 10, thereby completing the demonstration.
Notice that "objections" on the lines that I haven't demonstrated that I could choose 01 because I didn't choose it, are nonsense. They amount to saying I didn't choose the one I chose because I didn't choose the one I didn't choose. But of course I didn't choose the one I didn't choose, that's what making a choice is! So it will always be the case.
Further, the demand that I need to choose an alternative in exactly identical circumstances amounts to the demand that I choose both A and not-A. But this is a contradiction and nobody, other than those addressing straw men, thinks that exercising free will involves contradictory actions. Free will requires that the agent can select either A or B, not both A and B.

1 Reply

all that mean determinism are theists who want to prove that all is by force of powerful one, all are for the monster life as the base of their positive existence
all are the stupid that reveal the nature of stupid being the will to take advantage now so fastest possible as the exclusive way of being superior in order to think how that superiority could remain constant by forcin its growth

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

Quote:

Every time a person announces an intention, they assume that they have the freedom to perform the intended act, every time instructions are given, it's assumed that the stated action can be performed, and in both cases the assumption is usually vindicated.

You keep telling us that you know people assume they have realizable alternatives to the choices they make. But people operating under an assumption that they could have chosen those alternatives is not the same as experimentally observing that they could have. Having an assumption about something is much different than actually knowing something. People used to operate under the assumption that the earth was flat and got along just fine. Until they decided to do an experiment, and found out that they could go one way and end up back where they started. You having an assumption that the options before you in a choice could really have been picked within any particular choice and you actually knowing that are not the same thing. I know you are smart enough to make this distinction because if I would make such a serious error in assuming determinism without an observation from experiment to provide evidence that objects in the world do actually follow patterns to such a high degree they can always be predicted based on their initial conditions - you would call me out for that mistake. But for some reason you are not capable of seeing this logical error when it regards your own opinion.

Quote:

Every day millions of school kids manage to open their books to page 37, exactly as instructed.

Just as every day millions of computers start up with the windows logo on the screen.

Quote:

I now choose a single member proper subset of my option set and make my choice set: {10}.
Thus I have made a selection from amongst realisable alternatives, by definition and guaranteed by essential principles of experimental science.
I now enact my choice and type 10, thereby completing the demonstration.

You have demonstrated nothing because you have not actually shown the alternatives are realizable. You are here assuming they are realizable because you have selected the option you wanted. But this does not show you could have done something else. Nothing you have done demonstrates that you have done something different than a machine can do.

Quote:

Further, the demand that I need to choose an alternative in exactly identical circumstances amounts to the demand that I choose both A and not-A. But this is a contradiction and nobody, other than those addressing straw men, thinks that exercising free will involves contradictory actions. Free will requires that the agent can select either A or B, not both A and B.

You made the claim that you can pick any option you want during a particular choice and that nothing is forcing that option to be chosen-no outside factors. To know your alternative options are realizable and could have been chosen requires an experiment be done to show nothing could have forced you to pick the way you did. This experiment obviously involves redoing the choice you made with the purpose of showing nothing is making you pick the way you did. Your assumption that the alternatives before you are actually realizable is not evidence that you could have actually chosen something beside what you did.

1 Reply

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

To know your alternative options are realizable and could have been chosen requires an experiment be done to show nothing could have forced you to pick the way you did.

This contention is refuted by the coin argument, which shows that the probability of my actions being determined is vanishingly small. It was also addressed again several days ago. If there were some mysterious forces preventing me from choosing one of the members of the option set, then, in principle, it could be stated in advance which option I will choose. I expect that everyone would reject the contention that upon hearing which option I will choose, I would be unable to choose the other. Certainly I reject that contention, accordingly, I and I expect everyone else, knows that there are no magical forces of the type you keep appealing to.

2 Replies

what is amazin is the revelation of the connection between determinism and one will, which exhibit freedom to an extent of scientific objective fact that become a certainty

mister or miss, u should know like the world know since u r meanin being a world scientist, that ur free will mean others free wills objective realities more

u r so stupid from ur greed to get smthg, that u would go saying how what is stoppin ur will to exist is determinism so at least u would get to urself that powerful superiority mean to give u smthg at the end while u would b there clearly justifying ur decision to nag constantly around u so else free realities would give u smthg too

freedom is the truth but it means that any objective perspective is more free principally, since it is more an absolute fact existing to b perceptible by else freedom
but freedom being the truth doesnt mean that any freedom is right nor true
it means that only valuable freedom is truth but then any is free since only truth is the reason of any

which is clear with the observation of everyone how anyone is easily tempted to enjoy being evil living, this confirm freedom being the exclusive objective reason
in all logics positive realisations is the reason of more realities and superior considerations is the reason of valuable constancies that could stand alone

how from what we observe clearly of the world the reverse is the fact

how the more u force and destroy else the more people is there willin to do the same thing
how the more pervert and subjective mean u r focusing and limiting urself mind to ur pleasures only the more u become existing careless objectively about all and stronger among them

freedom

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

Quote:

the probability of my actions being determined is vanishingly small.

Yea, Ugh, isn't that another way of saying that the more factors impinging the less likely determinism and if their number are infinite then it's absolutely void

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Ughaibu wrote:

This contention is refuted by the coin argument, which shows that the probability of my actions being determined is vanishingly small.

No you have not shown that nothing has forced you to pick what you did and I already explained why:

Quote:

What about the objection that two infinitely long sequences matching or not matching tells us almost nothing about how they were generated. There are only two conclusions that can be draw from your exercise:

1.) If the sequences match they were probably copied somehow.
2.) If the sequences do not match their methods of generation are independent of each other.

No other information can be drawn from your scheme. So how again does either 1.) or 2.) show that determinism does not exist.

…or that free will is possible. You failed to answer this.

Ughaibu wrote:

If there were some mysterious forces preventing me from choosing one of the members of the option set, then, in principle, it could be stated in advance which option I will choose.

You do not really get it. These forces would not just be preventing you from picking one option they would be forcing you to pick the option you did. To be able to predict any system we must understand that system and be able to account for all non-negligible forces acting on that system. We do not know enough about the electrical circuitry of the brain to be able to predict it as we would more simple events such as a ball falling to the ground due to gravity. Also to predict the outcomes of something so complex you would need a computer more powerful than the brain with every circuit of the brain in it while knowing before the brain does what inputs it is getting. This is basically impossible. So your implication that because we cannot predict the brain we are proving these "mysterious" forces are not preventing us from choosing the other options in a set is completely misleading and just another unfounded assumption.

Ughaibu wrote:

I expect that everyone would reject the contention that upon hearing which option I will choose, I would be unable to choose the other. Certainly I reject that contention, accordingly, I and I expect everyone else, knows that there are no magical forces of the type you keep appealing to.

You are assuming you have knowledge you do not have. You are assuming you know other people's beliefs and for what? Just because someone may be making the same assumption you are, that is not evidence from observation that you actually have realizable alternatives. You continually fail to show that your alternative options are realizable.

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

If a system has an infinite complexity of forces determining its behavior it does not follow that the system is not still determined by those infinite rules or forces. It would be a completely unpredictable system but could just as much be said to be absolutely governed by rules as the simplest system.

1 Reply

u r provin the liar u r so the free that pick anything opposed to everything u know

if determinism is not true then getting smthg u want doesnt become a fact

u r provin bein a liar since u r clearly reasoning in terms of opposites while meanin science and facts to demonstrate by the other about what he told u that by definition freedom is never objective it is not a thing to invent an experience about it just bc u insist upon as if it matters really

it is funny how u keep suggestin what should b done to demonstrate free will as if u know exactly what that is while advocatin the opposite being the fact determinism so the total absence of freedom and will

in a way if determinism is not true then free will is not true either

only when smthg exist really that its opposite is possible too

that is how everything and anything is relative obviously which by its fact alone confirm freedom existence

obviously when opposites exist and since it is proven by u as ur way of reasoning and deducin things, then absolute do not exist

if absolute do not exist then freedom relatively exist then free will is possible too

which is obvious from all what liars get, whatever forces make the shape and forms of their lies and wills results the fact is their personnal pleasure in being successful liar as free constant true one out of all is the present them alone know

0 Replies

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

Ughaibu wrote:
This contention is refuted by the coin argument, which shows that the probability of my actions being determined is vanishingly small.
No you have not shown that nothing has forced you to pick what you did and I already explained why. . .

As you apparently still haven't understood the coin argument, I will explain it one more time.
1) if the world is determined, then all my future actions are fixed. So, if it is now 9:00am then my location at 11:00am is already a fact
2) given a Schrodinger's box type device, whether an incidence of radioactive decay will or will not occur, is random. This is to say that there is nothing in the surroundings by which we can state the result before it occurs
3) set up the box so that the probability of decay by 10:00am is half
4) at 9:00 I state that it decay has occurred by 10:00, I will be in the White Horse at 11:00 and if decay has not occurred I will be in the Red Cow at 11:00
5) as my actions, in a determined world, are already fixed and as I cannot know what the result of the box will be, the probability of my statement in 4 being correct is half
6) if it is the case that I can act as stated in 4, for arbitrarily long sequences, then the probability of the world being determined becomes vanishingly small
7) but my statement in 4 is equivalent to observation, so if I cannot behave as in 4, for arbitrarily long sequences, then observation is unreliable
8) as any argument in support of realism about determinism must at some level appeal to an observation, any successful argument for determinism would refute itself by implying that it is unsound.
Notice that instead of radioactive decay, we can use an astronomical observation, as any information about the specified event is isolated from us by the limitation of the speed of light. Further thought shows that this consideration even applies to the toss of a coin.

tomr wrote:

…or that free will is possible.

I have shown that free will is observable, and the only challenge that you've offered is that the world might be determined or that there might be other unspecified forces controlling the agent's actions. Both challenges have been answered. If you think there is some other reason to suppose that free will isn't possible, what is that reason?

tomr wrote:

These forces would not just be preventing you from picking one option they would be forcing you to pick the option you did.

Obviously, and obviously false. For the third time, if such forces exist, then, in principle, it would be possible to state, at 9:00, which pub I will be in at 11:00. But, if I'm told, at 10:00, which pub I will be in at 11:00, what is to stop me going to the other pub? There is nothing to stop me, and everybody knows that, including you. This is why denialism is such a contemptible position, the denialist is prepared to say things which they know to be false.

tomr wrote:

You continually fail to show that your alternative options are realizable.

That the alternative is realisable is guaranteed by essential principles of science. That neither course of action is determined is demonstrated by the coin argument. This has been fully spelled out for you and it's not difficult to understand, so, if you really don't get it, after so many repetitions over so much time, I will conclude that this discussion is beyond your abilities.

1 Reply

@tomr,

Move on, don't address that idiot...

1 Reply

@tomr,

Quote:

it does not follow that the system is not still determined by those infinite rules or forces.

Tomr you're absolutely right about that. In a sort of desperation I had cast out the speculation in the hope that a thinker deeper than I might find a reason to agree

As far as I can see the apparent impasse between free will and determinism, no matter the length and breadth of the participants' posting, hasn't been resolved. I can only suggest that it might eventually be shown as merely semantic

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

So this is how you have convinced yourself you have realizable alternatives:

Quote:

For the third time, if such forces exist, then, in principle, it would be possible to state, at 9:00, which pub I will be in at 11:00. But, if I'm told, at 10:00, which pub I will be in at 11:00, what is to stop me going to the other pub? There is nothing to stop me, and everybody knows that, including you. This is why denialism is such a contemptible position, the denialist is prepared to say things which they know to be false.

Here is an example of a computer program that would do what you say is so special about free will. No one doubts I can write a computer program that will be completely predictable once all relevant information about it is known. Let us consider such a program. I design a program that produces a constant red screen on a computer monitor. On the screen, the program also generates an input textbox for the user to enter a prediction about its future behavior. Whenever you enter an answer into the textbox the computer program is designed to take your answer and change the color of the screen to something you did not predict it would display on the screen. Now it is not possible to predict what the computer will do before you enter the input of the prediction into the machine. Because it is designed to do the opposite of what you predict. If you knew what the entered prediction will be and the algorithim that acts on that prediction you would be able to predict it because you would have all the necessary information.

If you cannot see that you are not showing you have realizable alternatives with these examples. I cannot explain it to you any clearer. That what you do can always be done by a machine is just a little bit thought on your part. You can continue to try to trick yourself into these beliefs with your thought experiments but no one is being convinced by them or else they do not honestly understand them. Not even you.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Okay I think i'm done.

0 Replies

who is happy about existing ?? the answer by its fact prove alone that existence is free
if existence as a whole was determined to b in times then any conscious perspective would b totally meanin objective as true facts happening, there wont b any liars possible or denials of reality

if conscious are free from everything then conscious is what exist as facts true, then determination of everything is not about existence conditioning, meaning then that existence is not determined, which sound a bit as we aknowledge everything being nothing

if everything is nothing then we are going nowhere so what we suffer from others free wills is a fact that will always b and is the only reality
which also sound what we know about the present call to everyone self defense

determinism cannot b through destructions and violations of rights

what is de termined is what is brought from its end, noone ends is to b destroyed or to destroy itself, true end is only what exist always as left free

so my guess about the issue is to say this

on one hand powerful liars and monsters forces are confusing everyone about their own existence being possessed

on the other hand, in truth confusion is about not believing that only truth exist so insistin on con fus so kind of attaching itself to anything energy even thoughts while they are nothing at all true
when only truth exist then since truth is freedom the idea of truth determinsim is to say that there cant b true existence unless anything and everything would become free, and since truth exist then anything and everything will surely and certainly end free

but freedom is not for value but relative as it is the exclusive value beyond truth while truth is freedom and free, so it is about another kind of freedom that is not the condition for exsitence to become true by the fact that truth exist

that is why we witness such degradation of all wishs and positive ambitions even in subjective means of wills
while we also witness one evil life so true freedom existence forever that is opposed to value and rights, so forcin that noone else can b free so if noone else is free and all is living one freedom then any else freedom is enslaved of its freedom rights for only one freedom life
if else is enslaved by force then even nothing dont exist and it is all a lie and about lies freedom through false existence anywhere and anyways

which cant b determined either since a liar is forced to invent any about any invented in denyin seein it, there is no reference at all

0 Replies

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

Here is an example of a computer program that would do what you say is so special about free will.

1) I have not said that there is anything special about free will
2) computers are tools, designed, built and used, by people, for particular purposes
3) if you think that you function as a computer does, then tell me, who designed and built you and for what purpose are you being used?

tomr wrote:

That what you do can always be done by a machine is just a little bit thought on your part.

Which demonstrates exactly what I have stated, now for the fourth time, that there can be no forces compelling one's behaviour because there is nothing to stop one doing something other than that which one will be predicted to do.
A computer is just a tool, used by human beings, that's all. That a human being can use a tool to demonstrate that they have free will doesn't mean that they haven't got free will, does it? How the **** could it? Do you think that the fact that cars behave, generally, as they're designed to behave, entails that human beings have no free will because they use cars?
Your "counter arguments" are ridiculous and haven't offered any challenge to my position.
1) freely willed actions are observable
2) denial that freely willed actions are observable commits the denier to the abandonment of experimental science
3) there can be no successful argument in support of determinism
4) thus no rational agent can espouse realism about determinism
5) there are no other magical forces compelling one's actions
6) choices cannot be completed pre-consciously by an algorithm deterministic process
7) free will is unavoidably assumed to be real by all healthy human adults
8) we unavoidably assume free will to be real, we can demonstrate freely willed actions and we have no non-psychological reason to doubt the reality of free will.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Quote:

7) free will is unavoidably assumed to be real by all healthy human adults
8) we unavoidably assume free will to be real, we can demonstrate freely willed actions and we have no non-psychological reason to doubt the reality of free will.

I am tired of you telling everyone who doesn't think like you that they are not healthy human beings. Always implying mental problems in others. We are all just people trying to understand the world. If anyone wants to hear more of the same old stuff, you can find it here:

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/members/ughaibu-14299.html

Apparently I am not the only one who got tired of you thinking you are superior to everyone.

3 Replies

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know