Why Free Will is an illusion

[Miles]

Interest in free will has usually centered around the affirmation and/or a denunciation of it. Some very interesting thoughts on both sides have come out of these discussions, many well thought out and others not so much. Whatever the case, there's been a frequent problem with some of the terms involved, most often those concerning "free will" and "will."

As I see it, free will is important to many because without it would mean each of is nothing more than an automaton, which is anathema to the notion personal freedom. If I have no freedom of choice how can I be blamed for what I do? For Christians this has the added consequence of robbing the concept of sin/salvation of any meaning. So most people are loath to even entertain the idea of no free will. Free will is almost always regarded as a given.

Any exception to free will is commonly seen as temporary constraint. "I am free to to do this or that unless someone/thing comes and prevents it. Of course this isn't what the issue of free will is about at all. Free will is about the idea that, aside from any external constraints, "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." So I think a decent working definition of "free will" is just that: the ability to do differently if one wished.

Those who most disagree with this are the hard determinists, people claiming that everything we do has a cause. And because everything we do is caused then we could not have done differently, therefore it's absurd to place blame or praise. A pretty drastic notion, and one rejected by almost everyone. So whatever else is said about the issue of free will ultimately it must come down to this very basic level: Are we free to do other than what we chose or not? I say, No you are not. Free will is an illusion. But before going into why, we first need to get rid of the term "choice" because it assumes to be true the condition under consideration, freedom to do what we want. So no use of "choice," "choosing,"chosen," or any other form of the word.


There are only two ways in which actions can take place; completely randomly, or caused. By "completely randomly" I mean absolutely random, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused. This is the most common notion of "random" events: those we are unable to predict and appear to come about by pure chance. The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, appears to occur is at the subatomic level, which has no effect on superatomic events, those at which we operate. And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate anyway; completely randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So that leaves non-randomness as the operative agent of our actions. We do this or that because. . . . And the "cause" in "because" is telling. It signals a deterministic operation at work. What we do is determined by something. Were it not, what we do would be absolutely random in nature: for absolutely no reason at all. But as all of us claim from time to time, we do have reasons for what we do. And these reasons are the causes that negate any randomness.

So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless the causes leading to the event had been different. If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home. The previous chain of cause/effects inexorably determined where I ended up. So to is it with our decisions. We do what we do because all the relevant preceding cause/effect events inexorably led up to that very act and no other. There was no freedom to do any differently.

What does this all mean then? It means that we cannot do any any differently than what we do. Our actions are caused (determined) by previous events and nothing else. Even our wishing to think we could have done otherwise is a mental event that was determined by all the cause/effect events that led to it. We think as we do because. . . . And that "because" can never be any different than what it was. We have no will to do anything other than what we're caused to do. In effect then, the will does not exist, nor does choice, etc..

Of course this means that blame and praise come out as pretty hollow concepts. If you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them? To do so is like blaming or praising a rock for where it lies. It had no "choice" in the matter. Of course we can still claim to have free will if we define the term as being free of external constraints, but that's not really addressing free will, and why free will exists as an issue. The free will issue exists because people claim "I could have done differently if I had wished." Problem is, of course, they didn't wish differently because . . . .

Any disagreements?

[Divine Insight]

Having said all this. How about a good argument in defense of free will? Got anything, or is it just another Christian creationism stuck with attacking evolution?


* (I await, but don't really expect.)

Here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28559

I created a whole new thread devoted to that very topic.

[Miles]

Having said all this. How about a good argument in defense of free will? Got anything, or is it just another Christian creationism stuck with attacking evolution?

What does Christian Creationism or evolution have to do with this topic?

Because Christian creationists have no evidence to support their position except "The Bible tells me so," in order to convince people of it they're reduced to attacking evolution.

I am not a Christian. In fact, I renounce Christianity as being the most absurd mythology ever created by mankind. And keep in mind that according to you mankind had "no choice" but to create it.

Absolutely, but good for you anyway.

Therefore, according to you, Christian mythology was indeed "created" by the universe long before humans ever existed (i.e. hardcore determinism).

Well, it was in the cards so to speak.

I also have absolutely no problem with evolution. On the contrary, I'm totally convinced that evolution is how we came to be. I am totally confident that we are indeed just one member of the family of "Great Apes".

Neither of those topics has anything to do with my rejection of your claim that free will does not exist, or cannot exist.

Then I still await a good argument in defense of free will.

However, as I mentioned before, before you can ever speak of a "will" being free you need to define just what it is that you believe has a "will" in the first place. Or even the "illusion" of having a will.

Then go ahead an define it.

If there is nothing that is having an "illusion" of having a free will, then what are we even talking about? And why are we even communicating?

And if there is something that is having an "illusion" then how does that fit in with a purely mechanical or materialistic worldview?

After all, a purely materialistic worldview sees the world as being made up of nothing more than elementary particles that cannot even have an experience (much less experience an illusion).

Therefore, I suggest to you that until you've discovered an explanation for how anything can even have the experience of "having an illusion" there isn't much sense in attempting to address a concept such as "free will".

Nah, all this tap dancing isn't going to get you out of answering. Define "will." Define "free will," and then give us a good argument in defense of free will.

You haven't even addressed the concept of it means to have a "will" in the first place.

Nope. You're not getting any help from me. You're the one asserting the affirmative, so I'm leaving it to you to explain your terms.

What is it that has a "will", or even has the experience of THINKING that it has a will?

You dismiss that as being irrelevant.

Only because it is. HOWEVER, if it helps you, lets confine it to humans: Humans have this will you speak of. Now, no more stalling, and on to a good argument in defense of free will.

[Divine Insight]

Now, no more stalling, and on to a good argument in defense of free will.

I already made that argument in the new thread I started.

Now it's up to you to refute that argument.

Nah, all this tap dancing isn't going to get you out of answering. Define "will." Define "free will," and then give us a good argument in defense of free will.

The only way that I can define "will" is to postulate that there exists an entity that has a "will" in the first place. So that's what I do. I offer that up as a postulate.

If you reject that postulate then I hold that you have just demonstrated the existence of an entity that has a "will" and the case is closed on that point.

On the other hand if you accept that postulate then I hold that it follows automatically from this observation that you must necessarily be something other than mere matter and energy that has no will.

Unless, of course you would like to postulate that matter and energy do innately have a will. In which case I would agree.

So at that point we would already be talking about a "spiritual existence", and the concept of having "free will" could then be address in that context as we could then define precisely what it is that we are claiming our will is to be "free" from.

As it is now, you currently don't even have a definition for "will" therefore it's meaningless for you to even speak of a concept of a will being "free".

[Miles]

Having said all this. How about a good argument in defense of free will? Got anything, or is it just another Christian creationism stuck with attacking evolution?


* (I await, but don't really expect.)

Here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28559

I created a whole new thread devoted to that very topic.

Whose pertinent part reads as follows.

"So now, what about the question of "Free Will"?

Is it rational to dismiss the concept and demand that there can be no such thing as "Free Will"?

Well, we can ask what that would mean.

If there is no such thing as "Free Will", then J.R.R. Tolkien had no choice but to write "The Lord of the Rings" precisely as he wrote it. He could not be credited with having any creativity because ultimately he didn't even come up with it. He was just doing what he deterministic had no choice but to do. Frodo Baggins and Gollum were determined to be characters in this fantasy billions of years ago. Potentially it was carved in stone at the Big Bang according to hardcore determinism.

Not only that, but the same it true of everything, including the Christian Bible. Every jot and tittle of the Bible would have needed to have been determined by the universe long before humans (who have no free will of their own) would be determined to write it out precisely as we see it today, including all of disagreeing versions.

Same is true of Greek mythology too, of course, and everything else that any human has ever done. Every song, comedy act, you name it. Everything would have needed to be predetermined from the dawn of time. "

That's it? Free will is true because of determinism's obvious consequences?

No different than the Christian creationist who asserts creationism has to be true because the message of evolution is too ghastly to contemplate. And believe me, a few have admitted as much

[Divine Insight]

That's it? Free will is true because of determinism's obvious consequences?

I would suggest that if that's what you got from reading that thread you should go back and re-read it.

The question isn't to ask what must be "true". The question is simply asking which is the more rational worldview to embrace.

Is it more rational to believe that every jot and tittle of the Christan Bible was predetermined in the Big Bang (along with every jot and tittle of "The Lord of the Rings"), or is it more rational to believe that these are products of Human creativity and free will?

Choosing which of these seems more rational to you is the point.

What might actually be "True" is basically irrelevant.

In fact, if it is true that every jot and tittle of the works of humans was actually created and determined by the Big Bang, that would indeed be quite mystical don't you think?

Human Free Will is far more pragmatic.

So if you are arguing against mystical religions you should actually be a very strong supporter of human free will.

Let's not forget the Malleus Maleficarum too. The Big Bang would have had to predetermine every jot and tittle of that as well!

I think your argument that humans have no free will at all is actually quite SPOOKY.

If true, that would be quite mystical actually.

I personally don't feel that you have thought through your proposals in sufficient depth.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 13 by ttruscott]

Is the program a person? Will blaming the program solve anything? Will praising it encourage anything?

If it was a good enough AI, I probably would praise it. I'd praise a learning algorithm for performing well in a task it learnt to do.

[Miles]

That's it? Free will is true because of determinism's obvious consequences?

I would suggest that if that's what you got from reading that thread you should go back and re-read it.

Re-read it. No difference.

The question isn't to ask what must be "true". The question is simply asking which is the more rational worldview to embrace.

Nah. Truth is where we should be at. You know, as in a sound conditional.


............Determinism is true if there is no other valid option
............There is no other valid option
............___________________________
............∴ Determinism is true

Now, if you have another valid option to present, I'm all ears.

Is it more rational to believe that every jot and tittle of the Christan Bible was predetermined in the Big Bang (along with every jot and tittle of "The Lord of the Rings"), or is it more rational to believe that these are products of Human creativity and free will?
Choosing which of these seems more rational to you is the point.

It's more rational to accept the conclusions of logic.

What might actually be "True" is basically irrelevant.

Not when truth is what we're aiming for rather than pandering to psychological needs.

In fact, if it is true that every jot and tittle of the works of humans was actually created and determined by the Big Bang, that would indeed be quite mystical don't you think?

Not at all.

Human Free Will is far more pragmatic.

Only as a salve to ones disquiet at the thought of a deterministic world.

I think your argument that humans have no free will at all is actually quite SPOOKY.

I think the word you're looking for is SCARRY.

[Divine Insight]

............Determinism is true if there is no other valid option
............There is no other valid option <----- Unsubstantiated Opinion
............___________________________
............∴ Determinism is true

Now, if you have another valid option to present, I'm all ears.

There are plenty of alternative options. Just because you refuse to acknowledge them doesn't make them irrelevant.

You already have a major problem in that you can't explain how anything can have an experience. All you are doing is ignoring your very own experience in favor of pretending that the world could be explained by nothing more than material particles that aren't themselves capable of experiencing anything.

Apparently you aren't even aware of the problem your philosophy ultimately faces.

Is it more rational to believe that every jot and tittle of the Christan Bible was predetermined in the Big Bang (along with every jot and tittle of "The Lord of the Rings"), or is it more rational to believe that these are products of Human creativity and free will?
Choosing which of these seems more rational to you is the point.

It's more rational to accept the conclusions of logic.

Logic?

What is logic?

Is it logical that anything exists at all?

Nope.

Is it logical that a universe can pop into existence from nothing?

Nope.

Is it logical that something could have preexisted the universe that gave rise to the universe including all the predetermined things that you speculate about?

Nope.

Our reality is not "logical" by any measure of logic.

That's a given. A purely secular materialistic world is every bit as illogical as a spiritual world.

That's the first thing you need to come to grips with.

What might actually be "True" is basically irrelevant.

Not when truth is what we're aiming for rather than pandering to psychological needs.

We can't know the truth of reality.

If that bothers you then you are the one who is pandering to your own psychological needs by pretending that you can know some absolute "truth" about the nature of reality, when in fact, you can't.

I have no need to know the truth of reality because I fully understand that we, as humans, simply aren't equipped to obtain that knowledge.

As I stated in my other thread, you can't even know that solipsism isn't the truth of reality. The entire material world that you base our "logic" on may not even exist at all.

The real "Truth" is that you can't know.

In fact, if it is true that every jot and tittle of the works of humans was actually created and determined by the Big Bang, that would indeed be quite mystical don't you think?

Not at all.

So you think that it makes perfect sense that a freak random accidental "Big Bang" would have just accidentally created a universe that was destined to have very specific stories, plays, and actual histories unfold, right down to every jot and tittle of those actions. Because remember, if you dismiss "free will" then no independent agent could possible change a thing, not so much as a jot or tittle.

If you think that is "logical" then I question your very notion of "logic".

Human Free Will is far more pragmatic.

Only as a salve to ones disquiet at the thought of a deterministic world.

A totally deterministic world wouldn't bother me in the slightest. What in the world do I need free will for? It wouldn't matter to me if there was no such thing as free will. It's just not a rational or logical concept to even consider.

You're assumption that my objection to a purely deterministic reality has anything at all to do with any personal desires is grossly unfounded.

It wouldn't matter one iota to me if there is no such thing as free will. In fact, that would actually free me up from having any responsibility for any and all of my actions. So living in a world where I have no free will frees me from responsibility entirely.

So why would I object to that on emotional or psychological grounds?

You are jumping to conclusions about my "motives" for my position on things with absolutely no valid reason to jump to those conclusions. The mere fact that you are doing this assures me that you do not think logically at all.

I think your argument that humans have no free will at all is actually quite SPOOKY.

I think the word you're looking for is SCARRY.

Spook and scary are pretty much the same thing.

The point is that if you're right and the world is totally deterministic then there can be no doubt that a designing creator did indeed create our world and that this creator is quite malevolent and mentally demented.

Allowing humans to have free will is a far more practical "natural explanation" for why history has unfolded as it has.

Contrary to what you seem to think your deterministic hypothesis would actually require a deity behind it. It would suggest just the opposite of what you seem to think it would suggest.

[Bust Nak]

Don't know what you mean by "typical sense," but in the sense that it's used in the free will V. determinism debate, Yup.

Yup to what exactly? You are agreeing with me that your definition doesn't help? You are affirming that "being able to wish differently" is a better definition for free will?

A being can wish for whatever it wants, however, the wanting is determined. If it wasn't, wishing would be a random event.

That doesn't answer my question. If a being's wish is determined, yet has the ability to do something else, does it have free will?

Actually, unless they're a bit daft, people don't blame such things, but sight them as the cause. People "blaming" ice and rocks, as you've used the word, does not suggest a deliberate act, such as those coming from a sentient being. Or are you suggesting that ice and rocks deliberately set out to disturb people?

No, I am suggesting sighting ice as the cause of accident is blaming ice. That you put quote makes around People "blaming" ice, tells me, by "blame" you are limiting that word to something specific.

Isn't [quantum uncertainty] the last refuge for the indeterministic-monists?

Don't know.

Well, I think it is. And you cannot discount it because you don't think anyone takes it seriously.

As philosophically defined;

"Will, in philosophy, refers to a property of the mind, and an attribute of acts intentionally committed."

Yes, it does not exist. The intentionality is determined.

That's not what the quote says, not directly anyway. There is some steps in your inference that is not immediately obvious. Care to put them up for examination?

Afraid not. We do what we do because we cannot do any differently.

That doesn't matter, at least according to your definition in the OP. We could do something else if we wanted to.

[Miles]

............Determinism is true if there is no other valid option
............There is no other valid option <----- Unsubstantiated Opinion
............___________________________
............∴ Determinism is true

Now, if you have another valid option to present, I'm all ears.

There are plenty of alternative options. Just because you refuse to acknowledge them doesn't make them irrelevant.

And as I asked: if you have another valid option to present, I'm all ears. That you don't, and are only able to claim there are, leads me to conclude only one thing: you don't know of any, and are trying to bluster your way out of this.

You already have a major problem in that you can't explain how anything can have an experience. All you are doing is ignoring your very own experience in favor of pretending that the world could be explained by nothing more than material particles that aren't themselves capable of experiencing anything.

Apparently you aren't even aware of the problem your philosophy ultimately faces.

Your continued irrelevancies aren't doing you any good, and are making you look kind of foolish.

Is it more rational to believe that every jot and tittle of the Christan Bible was predetermined in the Big Bang (along with every jot and tittle of "The Lord of the Rings"), or is it more rational to believe that these are products of Human creativity and free will?
Choosing which of these seems more rational to you is the point.

It's more rational to accept the conclusions of logic.

Logic?

What is logic?

Oh my goodness!!!
LOGIC: "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."



You know what. Your continual drifting to other issues, which are neither relevant nor interesting, has compelled me to end this silliness. If you wish, have the last word. I'm beyond caring anymore.

Have a good day.