Is free-will an illusion?

@ughaibu,

You confuse conformity with freedom...and you still didn't addressed my post as you should !

Namely that you acknowledge causation in between willer and willing but that you don't acknowledge the willers willing is constrained beyond is conscious control in multiple almost infinite ways...in one case causation is good in the other we miraculous throw all the weight in the world down the drain...brilliant !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Namely that you acknowledge causation in between willer and willing but that you don't acknowledge the willers willing is constrained beyond is conscious control in multiple almost infinite ways...in one case causation is good in the other we miraculous throw all the weight in the world down the drain...brilliant !

Bullshit!
1) I have not acknowledged anything about "causation"
2) I have not made any statements about either "willers" or "willing"
3) I have not made any statements about "constrained beyond [ ] conscious control"
4) I have not made any statements about "almost infinite ways"
5) I have not stated that there is a case in which "causation is good"
6) and I have not stated that the is a case in which "we miraculous throw all the weight in the world down the drain".
You are completely misrepresenting me, you have an idiotic pseudo-objection to free will which relies on a straw man definition. My interaction with you is over, unless and until you take your finger out of your arse, find out what philosophers are talking about when discussing free will and say something interesting in a clear and comprehensible style.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

If you don't acknowledge a causal relation between the existence of will as a phenomena and the owner of such will, the one who wills it, YOU HAVE NO FREE WILL but rather will happens through you, thus at best there is free willing, and that if granting that the Universe is Infinite in possibility which of course is a matter of speculation upon which you don't know crap !

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

I don't give a **** whether you acknowledged whatever is implied in your parlance or not you haven't clarified nothing so far except that you believe in free will because you say so ! Whenever one by one you decide to address the questions I pose to you I will perhaps give you the consideration of reading anymore of your bulshit crap ! I am in fact fed up of these self imagined self assumed self entitled authority coming up from arses like you which are incapable of addressing common sense objections !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

. . . you haven't clarified nothing so far except that you believe in free will because you say so !

Your credibility is now zero:

ughaibu wrote:

An agent has free will on any occasion on which that agent makes and enacts a conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives.
This requires that there be at least the following:
1) a conscious agent
2) a finite set of at least two realisable options
3) a means by which the agent can evaluate and compare the options.
A "choice" is the construction of a set with exactly one member and which is a proper subset of an option set.
A choice is conscious if the agent has imagined future expectations for each option, compared those options and holds one as preferred before enactment.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

Well, you got a thumb's up from me! Mr. Green

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

But just on what hell is the damn prove that you COULD ACTUALLY HAVE DONE OTHERWISE, eh ?????????????????????????????? You ASSUME you could have done otherwise given a 2 option exist and are potentially realizable in the world, but just where can you prove that because 2 options can be realizable whenever they can, at given time x with x conditions both options could be taken ?????
You are beyond ridicule...
Why the **** do you think the matter it is by no means yet settled ? Or are you claiming there is a consensus on the matter now ? That would be all to funny if it wasn't sad !

You go straight where idiots like you should permanently be, on ignore !

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

1) you, like every other healthy human adult, unavoidably assume the reality of free will.
2) you don't understand how gravity works, or what it is, do you hold that to be a reason not to assume the existence of gravity?
3) before there was a theory of nuclear fusion there was no understanding of the working of the sun, do you think the existence of the sun was in doubt before an explanatory theory was created?
Whether a phenomenon has been explained, will be or even can be explained is irrelevant to whether or not it exists. Obviously phenomena precede explanations, not the other way around.
You appear to be engaging in special pleading to doubt or deny the reality of free will. As you yourself unavoidably assume the reality of free will and successfully and consistently act on that assumption hundreds of times a day, your stance is irrational.

1) No I do not assume I have free will. Do you know my very thoughts? Are you omniscient?

2) On this point you are correct. But the analogy you give is misleading. If I understand your position you are claiming there is an alternative process for making choices, one beside determinism. Like gravity we can see that resultant choices do occur, but the means of how gravity comes to be is unknown. So we know choices exist and, like the case for gravity, we can propose a solution to its underlying means. If we propose that the process that results in a choice is deterministic we can show how that process would work by using functions or computer programs. If we propose free will we know nothing about what we are proposing except that the process is not deterministic. For instance, you would say that we have realizable alternatives yet this is really just "a process that is not deterministic" in another form. You cannot explain how we have realizable alternatives or how free will as a means to create a choice would work. Yet I can clearly show what determinism is. In the end because you cannot explain your process that results in choice you do not understand what it is you are talking about. Just as gravity can work without an explaination, choice can happen without an explaination, but if you claim you have a theory to explain how that choice or gravity came to be you better understand exactly what it is you are talking about or else your theory is irrelevant and we should not assume it existence as a viable alternative.

3) How interesting that you should use an example of a chain reaction to dismiss these arguments against free will. Before the concept of nuclear fusion there was the concept of nuclear fission and before that it was a disk of hot coals. But regardless of the explanation given, the sun exists. And depending on that explanation, the meaning of the word "sun" changes. Perhaps the meaning of free will for you will one day change to be something completely determined. But if you can give no explanation of how free will operates then it has no meaning or value in explaining how the choice came to be. Like the sun (choice) without any explanation (free will).

1 Reply

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
1) you, like every other healthy human adult, unavoidably assume the reality of free will.
1) No I do not assume I have free will.

Yes you do. It is unavoidable as you'd be incapable of functioning without the assumption.
An obvious example; when you go to an unfamiliar location you assume that if you want to piss, you can ascertain the whereabouts of the toilet, go there, and if it's free you can piss, but equally, if it's not free you can refrain from pissing. That is to say, you assume that both courses of action are open to you and that you can consciously choose and enact one of them.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Yes you do. It is unavoidable as you'd be incapable of functioning without the assumption.
An obvious example; when you go to an unfamiliar location you assume that if you want to piss, you can ascertain the whereabouts of the toilet, go there, and if it's free you can piss, but equally, if it's not free you can refrain from pissing. That is to say, you assume that both courses of action are open to you and that you can consciously choose and enact one of them.

What? I can write a computer program that can do what you just claimed that I do when I take a piss. It could be used to control a machine that can piss, its programming would take the available information and make a decision based on algorithms as complex as I choose to make them. The decision making process could be made more complex than yours and irrefutably that process would be determined. Having options to pick from in no way means that each option could be choosen in a particular decision making process. And if only one option exists surely that is the only one that can be selected.

To be clear I want you to know I do not assume that both courses of action are open to me to choose. These options are analyzed for their benefits and compared and contrast, but I do not know where this analysis will lead. During a decision making process I analyze each option as if I could pick it, but knowing full well that only one option can be picked under the circumstance of a particular decision being made.

1 Reply

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

I can write a computer program that can do what you just claimed that I do when I take a piss.

If you think that computer programs are conscious and if you think that they make and enact conscious choices from amongst realisable alternatives, then you think that computer programs have free will.
Personally, I see no reason to suppose that they're conscious.

tomr wrote:

. . . irrefutably that process would be determined.

Only if the world is determined, after all, someone has to write the program. The determinism which threatens free will isn't something local, such that it can be said that A is determined but B isn't. Determinism is a global thesis, all or nothing.

tomr wrote:

To be clear I want you to know I do not assume that both courses of action are open to me to choose.

Of course you do, hundreds of times a day about all manner of different things. You assume that you can reply to this post, and in the reply you can use various words, these assumptions are in opposition to not replying and to using different words. Human adults cannot function without assuming the reality of free will, and this is not even slightly controversial, it's exactly why free will deniers talk about the "illusion of free will".

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Quote:

If you think that computer programs are conscious and if you think that they make and enact conscious choices from amongst realisable alternatives, then you think that computer programs have free will.
Personally, I see no reason to suppose that they're conscious.

What does consciousness have to do with any of this? How does consciousness make our choices any different than a machines? You are trying to make this argument about something its not. Do you need to have consciousness to have free will? What is consciousness? How does it work? Again you assume a condition is necessary yet you do not fully understand that condition. We should stick to the realm of knowledge which is accessible to us.

Ughaibu wrote:

Only if the world is determined, after all, someone has to write the program. The determinism which threatens free will isn't something local, such that it can be said that A is determined but B isn't. Determinism is a global thesis, all or nothing.

No this is not true at all. Determinism is local. You can isolate a system and if that system is governed completely by a set of rules then it is determined. No wiggling room here. It does not matter how "free" you think the program writer is or whatever the source of these rules is. The system is from that point on determined by the rules.

Ughaibu wrote:

Of course you do, hundreds of times a day about all manner of different things. You assume that you can reply to this post, and in the reply you can use various words, these assumptions are in opposition to not replying and to using different words. Human adults cannot function without assuming the reality of free will, and this is not even slightly controversial, it's exactly why free will deniers talk about the "illusion of free will".

So you are saying that when I tell you I do not assume to have free will I am lying to you. I assume what you say for the sake of analysis in the decision process alone. I am not however under the influence of the illusion of free will. I can admit I do know what it is like to be overwhelmed with the power to choose options and to feel I operate in a special reality. But these influences have been put in check by acknowledging how things outside my mind are working.

1 Reply

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

You are trying to make this argument about something its not. Do you need to have consciousness to have free will?

Of course, unconscious actions aren't willed actions. So, as stated earlier, an agent has free will on any occasion when that agent makes and enacts a conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives. This is a standard definition of "free will", it is what philosophers are interested in when talking about free will. If you are talking about something else, then you should call it something else, as "free will" has a meaning in the discussion of philosophers.

tomr wrote:

Determinism is local.

No it isn't. Determinism is the thesis that the world at all times has a globally definite state which can, in principle, be fully described, that there are laws of nature which are the same in all times and places, and that given the state of the world at any time, the state of the world at all other times is exactly and globally specified by the given state in conjunction with the laws of nature. Again, this is what philosophers are talking about. If you mean something else, call that thing something else, as this is a philosophy discussion board.

tomr wrote:

So you are saying that when I tell you I do not assume to have free will I am lying to you.

No, I'm saying that you're denying it. As it goes, I have a lot of experience with free will deniers, and I understand, that for them, denial is an epistemic paradigm. After all, free will denial itself is supposedly a solution to the problem of free will. As an aside, in your case this problem is reduced to the claim that things only exist if there's some explanatory story attached to them. This position is quite obviously silly, as it entails that for pre-lingual babies and non-lingual animals, nothing exists. It entails that if you hear an unexplained noise in the cellar, then there's nothing to investigate, because there is nothing that could exist unexplained. In any case, you state that the sun can be allowed to exist if there's some story about it being a hot rock or whatever, so, equally, you could make up some story about free will and allow that it exists, couldn't you? In short your position is full of silly inconsistent nonsense. Back to the point, as denial is, for free will deniers, considered to be a valid epistemic move, this extends also to denial that arguments have been posted, that demonstrations have been given and in your case, that you, like all other healthy human adults, assume the reality of free will.
This acceptance of denial as an epistemic tool not only makes attempted discussion with denialists pointless, it places them outside the sphere of rational discourse. Clearly so, because we can easily construct a discourse in which two denialists hold the world to be contradictory.
So, as long as you maintain obviously false claims, such as that you do not assume the reality of free will, I will not be replying to you.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

Good post. Mr. Green

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Good post.

Thanks.

0 Replies

the problem is truth haters which are all what speak up for the pleasure of it

truth haters want to live in a reality of lies created in all terms, so they can live as being the wish of becomin superior upon smthg for sure one day

truth haters dont want to admit the least of truth rights to exist first in their minds before what exist since truth is existence ways reason
so they keep yellin hey wat about my free will in meaning the pervert insinuation of being free from truth so rejectin any relative possession of truth to their beings any suggestion of obligations they must achieve when they mean reality in some perspectives ways

but, truth reason being existence is exclusively freedom ways while it also mean its absolute freedom of its reason so meanin objective existence fully free of it
so u cant advocate in pervert ways to justify gods powers by meaning that existence is not free, that u could b determined to do or robotised, this is a lie and that is how u mean it

now only gods are violatin freedom realities and true freedom rights but here also it is the opposite of determinism since it is the reason of clear awareness and conscious negatively meanin the death of existence to stay outside the game that clearly deny rights as the base of existence

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

Ughaibu wrote:

So, as stated earlier, an agent has free will on any occasion when that agent makes and enacts a conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives.

Yet you do not know what consciousness is. How is a conscious choice different from choice that is determined. You assume alternatives are realisable but you cannot give an explanation or show how. You have said nothing. You talk about philosophers as if they are some special class of people with ultimate knowledge. They are just people like you and me. Stop pleading for me to know what your specific philosophers mean by free will or determinism as if they can provide the only definition. Be your own person and say what you mean if this is your definition then just say it, leave the philosophers out of it.

Ughaibi wrote:

No it isn't. Determinism is the thesis that the world at all times has a globally definite state which can, in principle, be fully described, that there are laws of nature which are the same in all times and places, and that given the state of the world at any time, the state of the world at all other times is exactly and globally specified by the given state in conjunction with the laws of nature. Again, this is what philosophers are talking about. If you mean something else, call that thing something else, as this is a philosophy discussion board.

You would love it if a computer program was not a determined system, because then like free will we could give no examples of either and they would be on the same playing field. And you once again you are pleading for specific philosophers to bail you out. No one seriously doubts that a computer program is determined system completely governed by the rules of its programming. Let me define a determined system for you: "a system where the outcome at any point in time is a result of the rules under which that system operates." You are doing a special pleading now if you seriously do not think a computer program can do this thing I have described.

Wouldn't it be great for free will believers if the only way we could concieve of determinism is the way you have described. As something that can and only can be seen in the complete system of the entire universe. No one would be able to check such a phenomenon and you would be safe from obvious contradictions like a machine making more complex decisions than you.

Quote:

No, I'm saying that you're denying it.

Because they have no knowledge of what they are talking about free will believers are like children pretending. Having information about what they are doing is not important. They just do it and do not consider the consequences that everything around them is determined. You cannot propose a reasoning for how the brain can produce free will. Yet you somehow know free will exists but you have no evidence that it exists. Also you fail to understand important parts of your own definition like consciousness and how it is necessary to free will. I can show determinism exists and give infinite cases that it exists. The function of the brain can be compared to a computer program. You have no comparison. You have nothing but unfounded nonsense. Since the only comparison we can give that could produce anything close to what the brain does is a computer program, determinism is the only theory that should be taken seriously. You once talked about a proof that determinism is real is vanishingly small. I would argue that the opposite is true because I can provide infinite cases or examples of it. You do not have something that can really prove this for free will. Whether you realize it or not.

1 Reply

@tomr,

If you're clueless about what "conscienceness" is, how are you able to respond to Ughaibu's posts? DUH! I guess you do it from an unconscience state. LOL Mr. Green

1 Reply

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know