Here is a simple, yet powerful, argument against the idea that we 'freely' choose our actions.
1. Our thoughts determine our choices.
2. We do not freely choose our thoughts.
3. Therefore, our choices cannot be free.
I don't think anyone would object to premise 1, especially those who believe in free will, since by definition, a "free" choice, if it could exist, requires a person to consciously make it, which by definition involves thought. Premise 2 may be controversial to some, but with a simple thought experiment, it can be proven to be true. If a person could freely choose their thoughts, then they would have to be able to consciously choose what they were going to think before actually thinking it. In other words, there would have to be a time before a person thinks a thought that that thought was consciously chosen by a person, which literally entails the necessity of being able to think a thought before one thinks it. This, of course, is a logical contradiction. Ergo, free will does not exist.
Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Student
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 8:00 pm
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 31 times
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #41[Replying to Tcg in post #40]
I do not accept your terms. Why should I? You are a skeptic, unwilling to experience what I have experienced.
When you are willing to learn and experience, then I am willing to debate you.
Can someone debate on a book that they have never read?
I do not accept your terms. Why should I? You are a skeptic, unwilling to experience what I have experienced.
When you are willing to learn and experience, then I am willing to debate you.
Can someone debate on a book that they have never read?
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8518
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2157 times
- Been thanked: 2299 times
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #42They are not "my terms." This a debate sub-forum. Debate is supported by evidence not vague claims (as judged by you) of greater experience. Additionally, resorting to an Ad Hominem rather than addressing the deficiencies in your claim is a logical failure.Swami wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:13 pm [Replying to Tcg in post #40]
I do not accept your terms. Why should I? You are a skeptic, unwilling to experience what I have experienced.
When you are willing to learn and experience, then I am willing to debate you.
Can someone debate on a book that they have never read?
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #44I'll give it a shot.
All free actions are uncaused (by definition of "free": free of causation)
No willing is uncaused...........(if not, please cite a willing event that has no cause.)
-----------------------------------
No willing is a free action...... (hence: no such thing as a free will)
No willing is uncaused...........(if not, please cite a willing event that has no cause.)
-----------------------------------
No willing is a free action...... (hence: no such thing as a free will)
.
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5246
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 49 times
- Been thanked: 165 times
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #45Why do you define free in that way?Miles wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:11 pmAll free actions are uncaused (by definition of "free": free of causation)
No willing is uncaused...........(if not, please cite a willing event that has no cause.)
-----------------------------------
No willing is a free action...... (hence: no such thing as a free will)
- thomasdixon
- Apprentice
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:19 pm
- Location: usa
- Has thanked: 22 times
- Been thanked: 26 times
- Contact:
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #46I chose to respond to this endless looping topic because I, and I alone chose to do so, because, because I chose to do so.
Which is the definition of free will.
free will noun
Definition of free will
1: voluntary choice or decision
I do this of my own free will
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
Freewill | Definition of Freewill by Merriam-Webster
free will
noun
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
….,.,
Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.
Free will - Wikipedia
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #47Because quite often the will is said to be free because nothing causes it.The Tanager wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:31 pmWhy do you define free in that way?Miles wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:11 pmAll free actions are uncaused (by definition of "free": free of causation)
No willing is uncaused...........(if not, please cite a willing event that has no cause.)
-----------------------------------
No willing is a free action...... (hence: no such thing as a free will)
.
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5246
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 49 times
- Been thanked: 165 times
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #48I would agree that a will is free in the sense of being uncaused (and thus agree with your conclusion given your definition), but free actions are not uncaused according to people who believe in free will. The will is said to be the cause of the free action.Miles wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 7:22 pmBecause quite often the will is said to be free because nothing causes it.The Tanager wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:31 pmWhy do you define free in that way?Miles wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:11 pmAll free actions are uncaused (by definition of "free": free of causation)
No willing is uncaused...........(if not, please cite a willing event that has no cause.)
-----------------------------------
No willing is a free action...... (hence: no such thing as a free will)
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #49I believe the issue rests on one's definition of "will," and personally, I like the Cambridge Dictionary definition:The Tanager wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:15 pmI would agree that a will is free in the sense of being uncaused (and thus agree with your conclusion given your definition), but free actions are not uncaused according to people who believe in free will. The will is said to be the cause of the free action.Miles wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 7:22 pmBecause quite often the will is said to be free because nothing causes it.The Tanager wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:31 pmWhy do you define free in that way?Miles wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:11 pmAll free actions are uncaused (by definition of "free": free of causation)
No willing is uncaused...........(if not, please cite a willing event that has no cause.)
-----------------------------------
No willing is a free action...... (hence: no such thing as a free will)
Will
noun
"the mental power used to control and direct your thoughts and actions, or a determination to do something, despite any difficulties or opposition."
noun
"the mental power used to control and direct your thoughts and actions, or a determination to do something, despite any difficulties or opposition."
Although I see no good reason for the "despite any difficulties or opposition" notation.
In any case, and in short, the question then arises about how one's thoughts and actions arise. Why did you think or do A instead of B? If one claims it's simply a matter of choice the problem is hardly resolved, but shifted to another issue begging explanation: Why choose A instead of B? If it's all a mater of pure randomness then it's not a choice or an operation of a will at all. So you have to have some reason driving your choice, say reason X, but just where did this reason come from? It really doesn't matter, because whatever it is it didn't prompt reason Y or Z or . . . to materialize. So one is left at the mercy of reason X (or some other reason that would prompt A instead of B). Therefore, thought or action A was inevitable: the will was not free to do other than what was directed to do. In fact, there was no actual choosing at all. Choice and choosing remain fictions of the imagination.
.
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5246
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 49 times
- Been thanked: 165 times
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #50Miles wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:14 amIn any case, and in short, the question then arises about how one's thoughts and actions arise. Why did you think or do A instead of B? If one claims it's simply a matter of choice the problem is hardly resolved, but shifted to another issue begging explanation: Why choose A instead of B? If it's all a mater of pure randomness then it's not a choice or an operation of a will at all. So you have to have some reason driving your choice, say reason X, but just where did this reason come from? It really doesn't matter, because whatever it is it didn't prompt reason Y or Z or . . . to materialize. So one is left at the mercy of reason X (or some other reason that would prompt A instead of B). Therefore, thought or action A was inevitable: the will was not free to do other than what was directed to do. In fact, there was no actual choosing at all. Choice and choosing remain fictions of the imagination.
But why is that reason(s) judged to be a good reason?