Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

[Rational Atheist]

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.

[Kylie]

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.

Your own thought experiment would show that a person can not decide what their thoughts will be, yet it depends on them doing precisely that: If I was to do it, I would have to sit down and decide that my thoughts were going to be about deciding my thoughts.

[William]

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.

Your own thought experiment would show that a person can not decide what their thoughts will be, yet it depends on them doing precisely that: If I was to do it, I would have to sit down and decide that my thoughts were going to be about deciding my thoughts.

I would have to go further than that and think about where the thoughts derive and what it is the thoughts represent...

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #339]

Free will is an aspect of the mind, and the mind is separate from the brain, so science cannot measure properties of the mind. Science cannot observe non-physical things.

Mind is not separate from brain. Why the assumption mind is non-physical?

Just to clear up any confusion caused by William's sloppy quoting here, the above quote does not originate with me. One can find what I stated by following the link to post #339.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #339]

Free will is an aspect of the mind, and the mind is separate from the brain, so science cannot measure properties of the mind. Science cannot observe non-physical things.

Mind is not separate from brain. Why the assumption mind is non-physical?

Just to clear up any confusion caused by William's sloppy quoting here, the above quote does not originate with me. One can find what I stated by following the link to post #339.


Tcg

The quote could have been assigned but it should be obvious that both atheists and theists could claim such a thing. I was replying to the overall post made re what was quoted.
If one believes that the mind is non-physical one is being asked to explain the assumption.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #339]

Free will is an aspect of the mind, and the mind is separate from the brain, so science cannot measure properties of the mind. Science cannot observe non-physical things.

Mind is not separate from brain. Why the assumption mind is non-physical?

Just to clear up any confusion caused by William's sloppy quoting here, the above quote does not originate with me. One can find what I stated by following the link to post #339.


Tcg

The quote could have been assigned but it should be obvious that both atheists and theists could claim such a thing. I was replying to the overall post made re what was quoted.
If one believes that the mind is non-physical one is being asked to explain the assumption.

What is obvious (not should be obvious) is that the quote did not originate with me. You didn't even properly quote what was stated by another poster which you falsely attributed to me. These facts may not be important to you, but they are to me. I don't want readers to assume that your intentional misquote is an accurate representation of what I stated. When you quote others, you should do so accurately or not at all.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #345]

My point being that I did not quote anyone specifically and that the question one is left asking is why anyone (regardless of who they call themselves and what position they say they hold) would argue that mind is immaterial.

I am not saying that you believe mind is immaterial or that you claimed that mind was immaterial.

I think that should clear things up with the reader, assuming anyone was actually confused about it.

[Diogenes]

[Maybe I missed it, but...]
Interesting this discussion on "free will" has gone on for 35 pages with no reference to Robert Sapolsky and the findings he relies on to conclude there is no free will; it is an illusion. More clearly than ever it has been shown there is no such thing as mind-body dualism. Thoughts come from the interaction of physical cells, neurons. These neurons are indistinguishable from the ones ants have. We just have more of them... lots more.

With a dozen ants together you will perceive nothing more than random patterns. But when you get 10,000 ants together, you have a colony that acts in unison toward a collective purpose. It's a matter of scale. Like the ants, if you get enough neurons together... like 100 billion, with their 100 trillion connections, something amazing emerges, consciousness. Consciousness arises from mere neurons

But strangest of all is the solid evidence that our brains signal a decision as long as 10 seconds before we consciously make that decision.

It is impossible to show that we can act freely of everything that came before.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/23 ... -sapolsky/

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #348]

The interviewer does well to push Sapolsky on why he says the evidence points to no free will when he says that how do we know these factors are determining an action rather than just numerous influences on the human will. His response is to point to the neurons that send the command to the muscles. He then lists various factors on that firing of neurons. That didn’t answer the critique at all; it just assumes the truth of it. He still needs to answer why it’s not just proof of numerous influences.

He doesn't even seem to understand ‘free will’. He says “it is impossible to show that we can act freely of everything that came before.” Okay, but those who believe in free will do not claim that the will is acting free of everything that came before; it’s just not determined by those factors.

Another thing that comes up a few times in Sapolsky’s defense is some of our actions being better than others. For instance, he says that it’s “wonderfully” liberating that people aren’t blamed for or burnt at the stake for things they used to be. How, if naturalism is true, is that objectively better? It’s just different. So, while maybe ‘liberating’ in a sense, it can’t be ‘wonderfully’ so. Society can’t be getting ‘better’ on his worldview; it’s just different.

And then he talks about how we should ‘quarantine’ those who are damaged and, therefore, doing this damage to others. If what is ‘damaging’ is up to subjective human desires that change over time, then it’s all about might makes right and can lead to all kinds of things most of us will think of as atrocities.

Also, his use of reason is completely useless if his view is true because we believe for or against free will based on physical factors, not the thoughts Sapolsky is stringing together.

As to the solid evidence our brains are signaling something prior to us making that decision and being conscious of it, could you present that. I don’t think it was in the article. He hinted at there being that evidence, but others interpret that evidence differently.