Happy New Year! The January Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species. Discuss it now.

The February Philosophy Book of the Month is The Fourth Age by Byron Reese (Nominated by RJG.)

Free will does not exist (Beware)

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 306
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by chewybrian » November 17th, 2018, 10:40 am

Burning ghost wrote:
November 17th, 2018, 9:55 am
Either
I'm lost. Are you saying determinism would disprove itself, or free will disprove itself, or that either, if proven, shows that predetermination, or some other idea, must not be true?

Dumb it down or spell it out, please (maybe if you type slower it would help...).

Tosen
Posts: 21
Joined: March 25th, 2018, 12:06 pm

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Tosen » November 17th, 2018, 2:27 pm

chewybrian wrote:
November 11th, 2018, 11:31 am
Tosen wrote:
November 10th, 2018, 3:41 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Xp7mvOcVM There is evidence right here my friend. Sam harris provides a phenomenoloical example (Through our Subjective experience) and then cites various experiments that prove it.Deny it or accept it at will. Most of you haven't read the EMPIRICAL DATA that I offered in this forum. Come back and then critique it.
I watched the video with all the open mind I could muster, but I see nothing remotely approaching proof there. He is simply asserting opinion in a factish tone, and attacking a straw man version of free will in which higher consciousness makes and executes every decision. We all know we have unconscious processes going on under the surface all the time, and subconscious ideas of which we may be unaware, or barely aware.

So what?

The fact that a muscle twitches in anticipation of a signal from the brain does not mean that there is no consciousness directing the action, or that consciousness is fully disconnected from unconscious or subconscious activity. If I am having difficulty breathing, I will become fully aware of it in short order. If not, I am probably fully unaware unless I decide to focus on breathing. I can switch to manual control and take over most minor decisions at my discretion, just as the owner of a business can man the cash register or take over any other spot in the corporate structure. Tasks may move up and down the ladder of consciousness based on my perception of the urgency of their resolution. I may consider issues in my subconscious, at the direction of my higher consciousness, and then become aware of the resolution when my subconscious is done working on the problem. How often do you try to recall some memory and fail, only to have it pop back in your head hours later? Your subconscious went to work on it while you went on to something else. People can even learn while they are asleep!

I imagine that higher consciousness, free will, the 'soul' is part of a cohesive system, in which it acts like the CEO of the corporation. Other elements may act at its discretion, like the marketing director pursuing directives given to her. Some elements act while the CEO is fully unaware of them, as the janitor mopping the floor at some remote branch of the company. Such multitasking seems essential to survival (or at least it was). Nothing Harris said made a dent in this model. We know WHAT it is doing (freely making decisions), but we don't know HOW. The timing of the signals to the body or the 'rising up' of ideas is not inconsistent with free will. We may, sometimes unknown to us, have asked for the idea to be considered. Or, if not, we still must consider its worth and whether to act on it and how to act if we do.

We don't have to have complete or correct information about our environment or complete control over our body or even our minds to act freely. We need only be free enough to choose between two or more alternative actions of which we are aware. Since Harris is trying to prove a negative, it only requires one instance in which this happened for him to be proven wrong. I am satisfied that I have made decisions every day of my life, as are most people. So, he is wrong.
"We all know we have unconscious processes going on under the surface all the time, and subconscious ideas of which we may be unaware, or barely aware."
-Not really. The only ones who become aware of this notion of there being a 'subconscious" phenomena of our minds is by paying good attention to your own consciousness like you have. This is is a phenomenological analysis, but even so we probably wouldn't have been able to realize it ourselves without getting educated about it first. It's a reason why this term (With what I know) has not appeared on ancient philosophical/scientific books is because of how psychology/science has progressed in our time. Remember that Harris correlated his own conscious description of his mind(Phenomenology) with empirical findings and both analysis imply one another. Meaning that it ended on a causal, materialistic and predetermined phenomena. Ultimately all of reality is truly predetermined, even it if feels like it's not.

"The fact that a muscle twitches in anticipation of a signal from the brain does not mean that there is no consciousness directing the action, or that consciousness is fully disconnected from unconscious or subconscious activity"
- This is a faulty analogy to illustrate what Harris tried to explain. It's not that it "twitches" because it "anticipates" a signal. There is no anticipation at all and no conscious directing of the signal. A thought occurs subconsciously first, then we have the false sense that we consciously did it . I have more empirical evidence for this if you still wish to deny the evidence Sam Harris provided. Please watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmI7NnMqwLQ. It's only 2 minutes long.

The model you proposed of the soul being part of a cohesive system of unconscious, subconscious and conscious awareness is entirely an illusion. I was there at one point by the way, on this same model. When you become aware of this, everything is unconscious. Consciousness is merely that which is watching everything that is happening right now. You are very close to discovering this for yourself, but your phenomenological analysis is incomplete.

"I am satisfied that I have made decisions every day of my life, as are most people. So, he is wrong."

-Well, I kinda am too satisfied, but this to is not a total product of myself. But, becoming aware of this like Sam Harris and I did is not entirely negative. Because we, as a self, a conscious self, can know that thinking is not our doing. So now you can have in a limited sense, more control over your life. Because even if there is no free will, there is awareness of that. So we still paradoxically decide things, but we only between thoughts that appear in consciousness, not decide what thoughts to think in themselves. This is one of the fundamental reasons why everyone is different, how every mind is different. Why they like this or that, hate this or that. If you truly had the luxury of deciding what you like, go and forcefully decide to produce joyful feelings by killing someone. Some serial killers adore killing people, but did they decide to feel happy when doing this? Nope.Their minds just like it. This is why Sam Harris calls these type of people biological errors. Free will is a gamble. Do you decide when do you have a "crush" on someone? Do you decide when produce feelings of sexual attraction or love to any other human being? Sure sexuality may be a different topic as it is genetic/biological in nature, but the same principle applies either way if everything is pre-determined. These examples are emotional states, and some people understand this quite easily. But it doesn't end on emotions alone (Understanding this is a medium level of awareness), it elevates on to thoughts themselves. That is the highest level of awareness. I will say this, it is not an opinion, I wish it was so it could be easily refuted.

Tosen
Posts: 21
Joined: March 25th, 2018, 12:06 pm

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Tosen » November 17th, 2018, 2:36 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
November 11th, 2018, 1:41 am
Tosen -

Shame. Thought you’d have been willing to stick around and consider a different way to approach the problem. I cannot argue against what say if I find it too vague.

Dreaming is s conscious state, a state of awareness. Your protest against that shows a misconception of the terminology. That was likely one of the bigger confusions alongside the idea of “mind” being something “other” than your conscious state?

I’m not going to pretend it isn’t a confusing topic and that every single utterance of “consciousness” by neuroscientists is identical (they do at least make an effort to define what it is they are talking about and the context given; taking care not to use the same word in seversl different ways.)
This is just a very hard topic for you as you have problems even thinking about consciousness or mind. I guess because of how prevalent those words have risen on many scientific/philosophical discussions and how twisted those ideas have become since then. This is why I prefer to have a face-to-face dialogue over a written one, like the dialogues of Plato, it is much more favorable. It would be much more engaging and I could clear out any misunderstandings in the present moment. I feel grateful either way you made an effort to understand me. I will not refute anything further as it is truly tedious through these means. Thank you for your time.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 306
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by chewybrian » November 18th, 2018, 9:46 am

Tosen wrote:
November 17th, 2018, 2:27 pm


"The fact that a muscle twitches in anticipation of a signal from the brain does not mean that there is no consciousness directing the action, or that consciousness is fully disconnected from unconscious or subconscious activity"
- This is a faulty analogy to illustrate what Harris tried to explain. It's not that it "twitches" because it "anticipates" a signal. There is no anticipation at all and no conscious directing of the signal. A thought occurs subconsciously first, then we have the false sense that we consciously did it . I have more empirical evidence for this if you still wish to deny the evidence Sam Harris provided. Please watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmI7NnMqwLQ. It's only 2 minutes long.

The model you proposed of the soul being part of a cohesive system of unconscious, subconscious and conscious awareness is entirely an illusion. I was there at one point by the way, on this same model. When you become aware of this, everything is unconscious. Consciousness is merely that which is watching everything that is happening right now.
(Yes, I watched the video, and I do not see anything convincing) How do we know that our subconscious does not contain free will in itself, or work at the discretion of higher consciousness? Remember my earlier point about recalling lost memories? I was trying to tell someone about that band that came before Jefferson Airplane. "They were better than the Airplane, way better than Jefferson Starship..." But, the name would not come to me. An hour later..."The Great Society!" So, I was not conscious of still trying to recall that name, but my conscious choice directed my subconscious to get to work on it, and it came up with the answer. Why would it be a surprise that all our systems work together at times?

(I would not forget this band, btw. it was just an example I made up...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LPDCdtjkx0)

I would agree that I am largely a witness to what is going on under the surface, much the same as I relate to the outside world with very little power to change it. But, I am only arguing for the smallest bit of free will, not total control. I am arguing for the stoic version of reality, in which I often can only control my reaction to or opinion of events. This is small in terms of my impact on reality, but huge in terms of my experience of reality. If I decide to accept what I can not change, and conform my desires and aversions to reality, then my experience of reality can be completely different, even as reality outside my brain remains the same. This is the basis of twelve step programs and cognitive behavioral therapy, which people use to change themselves for the better. I may witness the same information, from within or without, yet see it as something different, and react and experience the situation differently. My choices and actions in the future will be different based on my altered opinion of events.

Say you have issues with anger. It is simply a pattern or habit that you can break. If you remind yourself not to attach motives to the actions of others, you will not be so quick to sense injustice and react accordingly. Get on the highway reminding yourself you are likely to be cut off, and that you can not know the perspective of the offending party. They may not have seen you. They may have an emergency. They may be very damaged in their outlook on life, missing perspective and empathy and likely suffering themselves more than than they might be able to inflict suffering on you. They can only affect you if you assent, so don't.

If you remind yourself of the impending deaths of all the parties involved, you can put the situation into a very true and small perspective--it usually means nothing. Keep working down this path and eventually the habit of anger is washed away and you have become a different person. And, here is maybe the key element--the emotions that rush up from under the surface will eventually be different; the thoughts that you 'witness' will be different. Your conscious decision will effect different subconscious thoughts in the future. Your free choice will alter the images and experiences that come to you, which you say are not in your control.

I've benefited greatly from working through my own issues in this way, especially anxiety and depression, so please don't try to tell me this can not be done. Rather, if you want to hold on to your vision of consciousness, then you will have to explain how such a transformation simply 'happened' to me, without my assent and effort and choice.


Tosen wrote:
November 17th, 2018, 2:27 pm
The model you proposed of the soul being part of a cohesive system of unconscious, subconscious and conscious awareness is entirely an illusion. I was there at one point by the way, on this same model. When you become aware of this, everything is unconscious. Consciousness is merely that which is watching everything that is happening right now. You are very close to discovering this for yourself, but your phenomenological analysis is incomplete.
Possibly our subconscious is fully determined, but one of the determining factors may be the non-determined direction given to it by our higher consciousness. Perhaps it is somewhat like a computer, performing tasks in a predictable way, in a manner not prescribed by 'me'. It may have, almost certainly does have, tasks assigned to it which I did not actively assign. But, I can see the output and interpret it as I wish, and assign additional tasks.

I think we have a similar vision of how things work, with a critical difference. Perhaps you see consciousness as watching a video with no control over the action, where I would see it as playing a video game, with limited control over the action. If I can't sway you, and I have little faith that I can, perhaps I can convince you of this: you still have control over your opinion of the movie, even if you can't change the dialogue or the action.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3251
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by LuckyR » November 20th, 2018, 3:52 am

Eduk wrote:
November 16th, 2018, 4:05 am
BG when conversing with someone it's better to understand them than force your opinion of what a word means on to them.
Lucky. So you don't buy into determinism?
I would say that I rely heavily on determinism day to day. To me it seems like the most logical and practical and useful explanation we have. And all other explanations which I have heard, are well to put it bluntly not logical, not practical and not useful.
My only caveat is that as I don't know the fundamental nature of reality I cannot with absolute certainty declare determinism absolutely useful at all frames of reference and all scales.
So do I (and everyone else). However I have a slight correction to your use of the term determinism in your red statement. I agree with you that human (and animal) decision making is influenced by various known factors. I (and you) use our understanding of these influencers to predict how various things we say and do impact others (and their decision making) as part of our human relationship building. But... these influencers are less than 100% "deterministic" of the following decision. Lets say they are 70% influencers, in the sense that through your understanding of them, you can predict the response of your conversation partner 70% of the time. This is way higher than random guessing, but 30% short of determinism. I call the "missing" 30% Free Will. You can call it whatever you want, but until 70% can get raised to 100%, determinism (as opposed to what I could call "influencism") is unproven.
"As usual... it depends."

Eduk
Posts: 2371
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Eduk » November 20th, 2018, 4:14 am

As I understand it it is impossible to determine, exactly, the movement of an insect across a floor.
This doesn't necessarily say anything about determinism though.
Unknown means unknown.

Eduk
Posts: 2371
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Eduk » November 20th, 2018, 6:53 am

I was listening to a podcast which mentioned this study

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/ind ... -thinking/
researchers discovered that there are a type of neuron called place cells in the hippocampus (specifically area CA1) that store the memory for specific locations. When you are in a familiar location, a unique pattern of place cells will light up. Further, there is a second type of cell called grid neurons, which are arranged in a hexagonal pattern in the nearby entorhinal cortex. These grid cells light up in sequence as you move through your physical space – the physical arrangement of the grid neurons map to the physical arrangement of your environment.
This all may reflect a general pattern of the evolution of the vertebrate brain, that it began by mapping simple physical phenomena and relationships, which then became progressively more complex and abstract.
Our brains are just really sophisticated massively parallel processors. They are machines, and thinking is just a process of those machines. The neuroscience paradigm continues to be incredibly successful in reverse engineering how the brain works, down to a reductionist model of neurons firing. There also doesn’t appear to be any theoretical limit to our ability to understand how the brain works, it’s just a matter of doing the research and refining our tools.
The mind is what the brain does.
Just thought it was quite interesting to think of how our brains evolved from the physical to the abstract.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 306
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by chewybrian » November 20th, 2018, 12:59 pm

LuckyR wrote:
November 20th, 2018, 3:52 am
So do I (and everyone else). However I have a slight correction to your use of the term determinism in your red statement. I agree with you that human (and animal) decision making is influenced by various known factors. I (and you) use our understanding of these influencers to predict how various things we say and do impact others (and their decision making) as part of our human relationship building. But... these influencers are less than 100% "deterministic" of the following decision. Lets say they are 70% influencers, in the sense that through your understanding of them, you can predict the response of your conversation partner 70% of the time. This is way higher than random guessing, but 30% short of determinism. I call the "missing" 30% Free Will. You can call it whatever you want, but until 70% can get raised to 100%, determinism (as opposed to what I could call "influencism") is unproven.
I've usually been accused of building a straw man when making this argument, but I still agree strongly. One option will have appeal as the more rational choice, and sometimes the appeal will be overwhelming. But this is only influence if you still retain the ability to take either option, no matter which you choose. If we all followed our reason in all our choices, the world would be a very different place, wouldn't it?

99% influence does not negate free will. In attempting to prove determinism, you are trying to prove a negative (that free will does not exist). It only takes one free act to knock down determinism.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2904
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Burning ghost » November 20th, 2018, 1:07 pm

Chewy -

Think it through. If you can prove free will or strong determinism then by what means would such a proof arise?

What would an irrefutable proof of strong determinism or free will look like? Do either offer up any different consequences (of course the term “consequence” would prove somewhat redundant.)

If all past and future events are set out then how could we offer a proof that doesn’t surpass the our causal conception of the world? If all past events and set and all future event are not fully (partially determined; ergo the idea of “free will”) then of thre was proof of “free will” it would necessarily have to be a non-causally determined proof. Given that a proof requires premises and conclusions we’re not exactly able to do this with certainty only with probability - thus a proof of “free will” would not look like anything I can imagine plus it brings up a human regard toward time as “existing” in an atemporal sense (which makes no sense.)

We naturally seek out information that helps us understand via causally determined explanations. We’re unable to completely distinguish between what is “error” and what is “probable.” In case you missed it I was being ironic when I said “completely” - hope that emphasises the problem with terminology.

This is essentially no different to the question of what would happen if an unstoppable force hit an immovable object. The answer is much more simplistic than people realise. There are two options only (1) we wouldn’t even notice it, (2) we’d adjust out concepts accordingly to what the event revealed in our previously flawed concepts of “immovable” and/or “unstoppable.”
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3251
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by LuckyR » November 20th, 2018, 5:31 pm

Eduk wrote:
November 20th, 2018, 4:14 am
As I understand it it is impossible to determine, exactly, the movement of an insect across a floor.
This doesn't necessarily say anything about determinism though.
Well, yes and no. Since insect (animal) neurologic output is the subject matter (as opposed to simple systems like planets in orbit and billiard balls on a table) it is a perfectly good example of what we are speaking of. Thus the inability to predict the path is (admittedly imperfect) evidence against determinism. In fact you could say that everyone's personal experience living life here on planet Earth is circumstantial evidence for free will (this, of course does not prove free will), the "evidence" for determinism is either through very imperfect analogies or pure theory. You cannot disprove determinism, you can only prove it, which of course no one has. Free will steps up to provide a possible explanation until the day (never?) when determinism is proven.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3251
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by LuckyR » November 20th, 2018, 5:40 pm

chewybrian wrote:
November 20th, 2018, 12:59 pm
LuckyR wrote:
November 20th, 2018, 3:52 am
So do I (and everyone else). However I have a slight correction to your use of the term determinism in your red statement. I agree with you that human (and animal) decision making is influenced by various known factors. I (and you) use our understanding of these influencers to predict how various things we say and do impact others (and their decision making) as part of our human relationship building. But... these influencers are less than 100% "deterministic" of the following decision. Lets say they are 70% influencers, in the sense that through your understanding of them, you can predict the response of your conversation partner 70% of the time. This is way higher than random guessing, but 30% short of determinism. I call the "missing" 30% Free Will. You can call it whatever you want, but until 70% can get raised to 100%, determinism (as opposed to what I could call "influencism") is unproven.
I've usually been accused of building a straw man when making this argument, but I still agree strongly. One option will have appeal as the more rational choice, and sometimes the appeal will be overwhelming. But this is only influence if you still retain the ability to take either option, no matter which you choose. If we all followed our reason in all our choices, the world would be a very different place, wouldn't it?

99% influence does not negate free will. In attempting to prove determinism, you are trying to prove a negative (that free will does not exist). It only takes one free act to knock down determinism.
Sounds like you were in discussion with someone with more dogma than processing ability, I apologize to you on behalf of the universe. You are, of course technically correct (about the 99% thing and the single example idea) but to be honest, even as a skeptic of the determinism/pre-determinism model of human decision making, I would be so impressed with a 99% track record (or even a 95% one) that I would personally buy into the determinism theory and await the last 1 (or 5) percent.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 306
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by chewybrian » November 21st, 2018, 7:38 am

Burning ghost wrote:
November 20th, 2018, 1:07 pm
Chewy -

Think it through. If you can prove free will or strong determinism then by what means would such a proof arise?

What would an irrefutable proof of strong determinism or free will look like? Do either offer up any different consequences (of course the term “consequence” would prove somewhat redundant.)

If all past and future events are set out then how could we offer a proof that doesn’t surpass the our causal conception of the world? If all past events and set and all future event are not fully (partially determined; ergo the idea of “free will”) then of thre was proof of “free will” it would necessarily have to be a non-causally determined proof. Given that a proof requires premises and conclusions we’re not exactly able to do this with certainty only with probability - thus a proof of “free will” would not look like anything I can imagine plus it brings up a human regard toward time as “existing” in an atemporal sense (which makes no sense.)
Real proof may always remain theoretical, like predicting human actions with near perfect certainty by knowing the arrangement of all the atoms in the body. Perhaps we could somehow arrive at reasonable certainty, as in the case of evolution, in which case it would make no more sense to hold out for free will than for creationism. Some people seem to think we are already there, because we have the rules of cause and effect. I think, rather, that we are already there in favor of free will.

We have the experience of free will, which can not be washed away by calling it an illusion. This is backed up by the fact that we are unable to define consciousness or the 'life force' as being physical in any way. We can not attribute characteristics to it which we are able to attach to any physical thing. Together, these tell me that it is not something physical, and therefore not subject to the rules that govern physical things. Or, perhaps it is a type of physical thing with which we are not yet familiar, which plays by different rules.
Burning ghost wrote:
November 20th, 2018, 1:07 pm
This is essentially no different to the question of what would happen if an unstoppable force hit an immovable object. The answer is much more simplistic than people realise. There are two options only (1) we wouldn’t even notice it, (2) we’d adjust out concepts accordingly to what the event revealed in our previously flawed concepts of “immovable” and/or “unstoppable.”
Full-on determinism is more absurd than people seem to want to admit. I would be unable to take any action but the determined one. All contemplation on my part would be wasted time. I know I am able to take any number of actions at this very moment, some of which are evil and dangerous. But, the determinist wants me to accept that if I take the evil path, then I was unable to do otherwise.

Full-on free will is pretty harsh, though. Read Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism". He says every act involves willing that all of humanity act the same. A man is defining morality with every breath. He leaves no room for 'passions', not only ruling out determinism, but also 'influencism'.

Hard determinism seems the worst option, as we are eliminating all meaning from life and any chance to determine our own future. But, hard free will seems to lack empathy for the struggle people must go through to try to do the right thing. It is only fair to acknowledge their physical limitations, inherited traits and experiences which might make it harder for them to fly right.

"Influencism' seems to best reflect reality to me, and this should be the default explanation unless and until hard proof of something else comes along. When I argue in favor of free will, I only want to make sure it is part of the mix, not to say that it is in full and easy control all the time.
LuckyR wrote:
November 20th, 2018, 5:40 pm
Sounds like you were in discussion with someone with more dogma than processing ability, I apologize to you on behalf of the universe. You are, of course technically correct (about the 99% thing and the single example idea) but to be honest, even as a skeptic of the determinism/pre-determinism model of human decision making, I would be so impressed with a 99% track record (or even a 95% one) that I would personally buy into the determinism theory and await the last 1 (or 5) percent.
Sweet! That's the best kind of correct.

Of course, we have nothing like that 99%, which would admittedly be tough to swim against. But, if you look at your own experience honestly, I think you would conclude that you are influenced but also free. Those who argue against that are trying to make the theory fit reality. Some folks have an irrational attachment to rationality, and want to fold their arms and say they understand everything through science, even though science is a journey, not a destination. You could have folded your arms in this way at any point in history and been proven wrong in many respects. So, our current understanding is also subject to be proven wrong in many ways we can't see yet, and this area is a good bet to be one of them.

Eduk
Posts: 2371
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Eduk » November 21st, 2018, 7:55 am

Full-on determinism is more absurd than people seem to want to admit. I would be unable to take any action but the determined one. All contemplation on my part would be wasted time.
What if you were determined to contemplate? Would unavoidable contemplation count as contemplation in your opinion?
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2904
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Burning ghost » November 21st, 2018, 9:46 am

Chewy -

Free will is a no brainer in terms of ethics. People are not exactly inspired to look for more and more responsibility in life.

The whole argumentation set out around “free will” often ends up being difficult because people either refuse to account for, simplify, or mistakenly conflate the physicalist causally determined view of events and/or the morality of the matter. This atrikes back to the differing use of terminology in philosophy surrounding these “separate” (or rather commonly separated positions.)

The other option is to go into some fictional world like “Being Sam Harris,” where everyone walks around saying “Harris, Harris, Harris?” to receive the reply “Harris, Harris, Harris!” - akin to the famous movie featuring a certain John Malkovich :)
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
jkim0231
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: November 28th, 2018, 9:59 pm

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by jkim0231 » November 28th, 2018, 10:47 pm

I have been recently thinking around this concept, although I have not, as with many other thoughts, decided that free will does not exist.
There seems to have been many discussions on this matter already, and I wanted to introduce a line of thought that may explain determinism(I just learned that this was called as it is) with an example drawn from nature.

I natural sciences, we learn that matter is connect via cause - effect relationships. If their are exceptions, let me know. Even the tiniest movement of a air molecule was cause by something and will effect something--perhaps the movements of air molecules nearby. This new effect will in turn immediately have effect on things nearby. As such, I think everything in natural sciences are probably related to all that exist and have existed in time. An air molecule on earth is related to some gas particle on the other side of the galaxy since, if we conveniently assume that the universal had it's start at that miniscule point at the bigbang, the countless myriad of causes for the state of the air molecule and those for the state of the gas particle far away will be related just some how since all universe began as a point. They are not directly related, but indirectly in that if one were to trace the causes for the air molecule and the gas molecule in their states, he will find a common ancestor in some form.
Here is another way to picture it. Think about a rock floating in space. I tend to believe that the rock is floating there because of countless causes that lead it to be a rock to be there since the beginning of universe. I carefully guess, that maybe there was no randomness in the process of rock coming to be floating there.

If one were to assume that similar was of humans, that any action or thought at a certain moment was led by the similar trains of causes, he might conclude that there was no other way of that action or thought happening.

To my understanding, free will can be explained as a person's freedom in his actions/thoughts/behaviors/etc. So if I ate a sandwich for lunch, perhaps II have never employed a free choice to eat it. Underlying such decision was many tendencies that were present within me. Here, tendencies might included all the thoughts and impulses and such that were present that caused my settling on eating the sandwich. These thoughts and impulses were present as if the air molecule was present in its state, with its own causes that lead it to be present at that precise time. From the beginning of my birth, I was born a human which intrinsic features, taking in and remembering experiences and forming thoughts all at the same time, the thoughts playing through my mind and making sense of all of them as a human would(evolution). The actions and choices that I make as I grow up are not free from the instincts and tendencies that I have inherited and formed until that point. The continuation of this line of thought may lead one to say that an action made by one at a time is never free from those impulses and tendencies and such that have been nurtured from inheritance until then.

One needs to state that in all these processes, not the slightest room for freedom or randomness(as in it happens unheeded by any cause) in any of all these processes in living as a human for him to finally say that free will does not exist.

Well this is my opinion. Thoughts I've been thinking. By no means I believe it fully, as with anything else, and it seems that proof will be nigh impossible as well is it being a most horrid thought.

The concept of freewill does not seem to be compatible with our society, modern of ancient. It doesn't fit with religion, mysticism(i guess), and individualism. It is easier to dismiss too since the idea of being aware of your life where you seem to be making choices but that they are based on reasons and the choice it self is not yours to freely make seem absurd. It is easier to dismiss also since society nurtures us into believing that we are special and such. But when we wonder how ants and bees are working hard and behaving as they do as if they don't have any freedom, we may be doing the same thing, just not aware of it.

Post Reply