How can one rationally argue against free will?

[LuckyR]

Those who are super wealthy have more free will than those who don't.

Well, you are implying more options for those with more resources. This is untrue. Rather those with resources have more DESIRABLE options, not more total options. Important for living life in reality but unimportant for addressing the concept of human decision making.

[Jklint]

Those who are super wealthy have more free will than those who don't.

Well, you are implying more options for those with more resources. This is untrue. Rather those with resources have more DESIRABLE options, not more total options. Important for living life in reality but unimportant for addressing the concept of human decision making.

Being super wealthy grants me more options to will than simply to wish. The before and after, for example of buying a lottery ticket worth 100 milliion. As for the thousand year old philosophical ramblings of whether we have free will or not is as fruitful in determining as it was on the first day, worth nothing and unresolved.

[Alias]

...or not...

[chewybrian]

In normal human experience (as well as the normal experience of all conscious entities), there are close constraints on one's power of action. It's not an either all free or all pre-determined situation. We are always limited in what we know, what we can imagine and invent, what we need, what we are able to do, what we are allowed to do, what we dare to attempt, what any action might cost in consequences, what options are available in a given situation, etc. Nothing we experience is all-one-thing or its-opposite: everything we know is grey and muddled. Of course there is no free will; there is no free anything. All you get is wiggle-room.

This 'wiggle room' is a reasonable assessment of reality, but I just call that free will, rather than some sort of reconciliation or mixture. Determinism is by definition an all or nothing proposition. You can not choose under determinism, as your action would be fully forced, and thus not a choice. (Of course, you may have 'the illusion of choice'...*cough* red flag *cough*) Redefining choice as something it's not is simply moving the goal post. It seems one must accept the logic of determinism, or their own experience of free will, or choose to make no finding.

I choose free will, and this grey and muddled mess is it. The theory of determinism is strong. Yet, the end of the line does not mesh with reality, so I must assume it is missing a key piece of information, like the real nature of life and consciousness and such.

[Belindi]

Having more options is a state of affairs that is caused. The super rich are caused to be super rich.

Their riches did not arise by a miracle or by magic.

The super rich are as embroiled in causality as anyone else. ' Free Will' is part of a religious myth which is useful for social control.

[Alias]

.. It seems one must accept the logic of determinism, or their own experience of free will, or choose to make no finding.

Okay, if that's the rule, "no finding" has to be the verdict.
We cannot possibly prove that everything is determined. We cannot possibly prove that everything is not determined. We cannot possibly prove that some things are determined and some things are mutable.
We know that our will is not entirely free, and we are aware of some - though not all - of the factors that limit our freedom of choice.
So we take the information available: the little fragments of the working of the universe that we've been able to observe and describe so far, and we extrapolate from that information to all kinds of theories. The theories we come up with range widely in their plausibility, in the logic and consistency of their development, in the known factors they take into account, in the amount of wishful thinking and fantasy they incorporate.
But I don't see how any of them attains the power to enforce a rule of all-or-nothing adherence.
I'm not convinced that I must accept any theory as it is presented, without modification or embellishment.

[chewybrian]

.. It seems one must accept the logic of determinism, or their own experience of free will, or choose to make no finding.

Okay, if that's the rule, "no finding" has to be the verdict.
We cannot possibly prove that everything is determined. We cannot possibly prove that everything is not determined. We cannot possibly prove that some things are determined and some things are mutable.
We know that our will is not entirely free, and we are aware of some - though not all - of the factors that limit our freedom of choice.
So we take the information available: the little fragments of the working of the universe that we've been able to observe and describe so far, and we extrapolate from that information to all kinds of theories. The theories we come up with range widely in their plausibility, in the logic and consistency of their development, in the known factors they take into account, in the amount of wishful thinking and fantasy they incorporate.
But I don't see how any of them attains the power to enforce a rule of all-or-nothing adherence.
I'm not convinced that I must accept any theory as it is presented, without modification or embellishment.

I agree with all you say. We all have to make some assumptions and act on them to function in the real world. But we tend to stack logic upon them and run them to extremes, where they begin to break down and we try to reinforce and prop them up.

Believer in God: "The universe didn't just make itself!"

Me: "Then God made heroin addicts on purpose? God allowed world wars to happen?"

Believer: "God works in mysterious ways."

-----

Believer in determinism: "All material things follow the laws of physics; I am made of stuff, so I am determined."

Me: "What about choice and free will?"

Determinist: "You have the illusion of free will; it is necessary to pretend you decide what to have for dinner, but of course you can not."

-----

I believe I have free will. But, I don't believe in free will based on a theory. I believe it because I experience it at all times. It is as primary as sight or hearing or any other sense. Any theory I come up with is based on my impressions formed with inputs from these senses, and therefore should not take priority over the very senses that allow me to make the theories. Shall I come up with a theory that my sight is merely an illusion, that I am really blind, but must pretend to be able to see to function in the world? This determinist view of reality is at least equally difficult to believing in God, to me.

I can only conclude that the religious zealot and the determinist both seek the comfort of certainty to avoid facing an uncertain world. It is perhaps two sides of the same coin. Maybe I am simply the third side, the jagged edge of the quarter?

[Alias]

I believe I have free will. But, I don't believe in free will based on a theory. I believe it because I experience it at all times.

By that criterion, we also believed in a flat earth and disease from miasma. Both were functionally adequate theories - until they became insufficient in the light of new evidence.
As regards freedom of will, we have long been aware of physical insufficiencies and external constraints, so we're always known that our range of choice and freedom are limited; since the advent of science, we have became aware of other factors, such as the force of psychological conditioning, chemical dependency, genetics, etc, which also limit our choices. Science, too, has shown us great long traceable chains of causation which predetermine the outcomes of natural processes.
Just as, back in the stone age, our ancestors experienced free will and projected that same volition and agency onto natural phenomena, scientific man tends to project what he observes in nature back onto himself - concluding that no volition or agency is at work in either realm. What we have begun to learn about brain function tends to reinforce that notion. And so the philosophy is enjoying a strong resurgence.

Shall I come up with a theory that my sight is merely an illusion,

No. But it may be prudent to keep in mind that we do have a complex enough brain to generate illusions and delusions.
I like to keep the door ajar, just in case I need to make a quick getaway.

[LuckyR]

I believe I have free will. But, I don't believe in free will based on a theory. I believe it because I experience it at all times.

By that criterion, we also believed in a flat earth and disease from miasma. Both were functionally adequate theories - until they became insufficient in the light of new evidence.
As regards freedom of will, we have long been aware of physical insufficiencies and external constraints, so we're always known that our range of choice and freedom are limited; since the advent of science, we have became aware of other factors, such as the force of psychological conditioning, chemical dependency, genetics, etc, which also limit our choices. Science, too, has shown us great long traceable chains of causation which predetermine the outcomes of natural processes.
Just as, back in the stone age, our ancestors experienced free will and projected that same volition and agency onto natural phenomena, scientific man tends to project what he observes in nature back onto himself - concluding that no volition or agency is at work in either realm. What we have begun to learn about brain function tends to reinforce that notion. And so the philosophy is enjoying a strong resurgence.

Shall I come up with a theory that my sight is merely an illusion,

No. But it may be prudent to keep in mind that we do have a complex enough brain to generate illusions and delusions.
I like to keep the door ajar, just in case I need to make a quick getaway.

Ah, but the detetminists have painted themselves into the corner of claiming that there is only one "choice" ie the pre-determined one. So your commentary about limited choices are consistent with free will and incompatible with predetermination.

[Alias]

Ah, but the detetminists have painted themselves into the corner of claiming that there is only one "choice" ie the pre-determined one. So your commentary about limited choices are consistent with free will and incompatible with predetermination.

I can live with that - but won't commit to it.

[Alias]

Anything that absolute would be silly to commit to, when we have no overview of the process and no method of testing.
It's just the same kind of riding-for-a-fall hubris as the god dogma.

[chewybrian]

I believe I have free will. But, I don't believe in free will based on a theory. I believe it because I experience it at all times.

By that criterion, we also believed in a flat earth and disease from miasma. Both were functionally adequate theories - until they became insufficient in the light of new evidence.

But we are in the same place with determinism that we were with the flat earth back then. It makes sense and logic seems to dictate to us that it is true. Yet, we lack the capacity to prove it. When we gained the capacity to prove the flat earth, it turned out we were not on the right track. If or when we are truly able to know the nature of life, consciousness and free will, we might find we are free, or that we are fully determined, but right now we can not be sure.

I am not trying to argue for God or anything else as if they were known facts. But, it is too much to imagine that an inanimate universe, without purpose, turned matter into life, and gave it reason and the ability to understand the universe and reflect upon itself, gave it the impression it was free to act, the necessity to act, and the need to find meaning to its existence. I am thrown into the world and forced to choose at every moment, often suffering if I make wrong choices, only to be told that there never was a choice, and I am nothing more than a rock rolling down a mountain. It seems the cruelest possible joke. That is until you consider the possibility of convincing a free being that they in fact were not free, encouraging them to discard the only thing of real value they ever had or could have.

The determinist says we must pretend we are free, and continue to choose to function in the world; is that not a big red flag? But, I say that if I am forced to choose either way, then I will believe I am choosing freely. I will make better choices if I believe, and that fact alone tells me that I am free. If I really believed I was not free, there would be no incentive to try to accomplish anything. I would only do what the universe dictated. There would be a constant pressure to give up hope if I really believed I could not influence events or improve myself, and I would naturally not accomplish as much. I frankly don't see how someone can believe in determinism deep in their soul, if you pardon the expression, and not want to commit suicide.

[Alias]

But we are in the same place with determinism that we were with the flat earth back then. It makes sense and logic seems to dictate to us that it is true. Yet, we lack the capacity to prove it.

This, along with several observations that run counter to is, is my reason for not subscribing to determinsm.

But, it is too much to imagine that an inanimate universe, without purpose, turned matter into life, and gave it reason and the ability to understand the universe and reflect upon itself, gave it the impression it was free to act, the necessity to act, and the need to find meaning to its existence. I am thrown into the world and forced to choose at every moment, often suffering if I make wrong choices, only to be told that there never was a choice, and I am nothing more than a rock rolling down a mountain. It seems the cruelest possible joke.

To perpetrate such a joke would require a supernatural intelligence - which is another idea to which I don't subscribe.

The determinist says we must pretend we are free, and continue to choose to function in the world;

Do they say that? If so, they're using words that are meaningless in their belief-system: what we 'must' do is obviously whatever we are already doing, since we can do no otherwise.
I thought it was simply that we have this experience and can't help acting as if we were making autonomous choices - whether our will is free in fact or pre-determined - because we can't know, either way and can't - literally cannot - live without making decisions.

But, I say that if I am forced to choose either way, then I will believe I am choosing freely.

You can't know whether that belief itself is something you chose or something you were preconditioned to decide.

I will make better choices if I believe,

That really doesn't logically follow.
Whether your decisions are autonomous or predetermined, they are exactly as good or bad as they are, with no 'control group' of decisions made by the alternate method - nothing to compare with.

If I really believed I was not free, there would be no incentive to try to accomplish anything.

If you were not free, your beliefs, incentives and accomplishments would be as irrelevant as your autonomy.

I frankly don't see how someone can believe in determinism deep in their soul,

I suspect nobody does, deep in their mind, either. It's an intellectual exercise, a sophistry, not a lifestyle.

and not want to commit suicide.

If it were true, their desire to commit suicide and their success or failure in attempting it is already written in their genes and neurons. If determinism is true, nobody is free to want anything, decide anything or perform anything they were not already fated to feel, desire, choose and do.

I don't think that's how it is. I think life is the anomaly, the thing that swims upstream of entropy and is capable of surprises; the thing that sprung up in some clumps of matter and said "boo!" in all an inanimate universe where "boo" had never been said before.
But the question wasn't how do I think it is; the question was how to argue the case.

[chewybrian]

I will make better choices if I believe,

That really doesn't logically follow.
Whether your decisions are autonomous or predetermined, they are exactly as good or bad as they are, with no 'control group' of decisions made by the alternate method - nothing to compare with.

Not surprisingly, it has been shown that doubting free will causes people to behave badly. I don't know if this study occurred in a universe fully determined or not, as you say. But, yes, in fact, believing in your own free will is important and useful, and telling people they lack free will is dangerous, right here in this universe, however it may be constructed. Study participants were either shown reading material that told them about determinism or not. Those exposed to determinism were more likely to cheat and less likely to want to help others.

https://mindhacks.com/2013/09/29/the-ef ... free-will/

And the results are striking. One study reported that participants who had their belief in free will diminished were more likely to cheat in a math test. In another, US psychologists reported that people who read Crick’s thoughts on free will (against free will) said they were less likely to help others.

This is what I was getting at. Further, this exposure to determinism was at the surface level, and I contend that belief at a deeper level is far more harmful. I know from my past experience that I suffered in the world when I thought events were simply happening to me, and I looked outside myself for reasons I was happy or unhappy. I wasn't embracing determinism, but neither was I embracing my free will. My journey in philosophy has been all about turning that perspective around:

“The condition and characteristic of a vulgar person, is, that he never expects either benefit or hurt from himself, but from externals. The condition and characteristic of a philosopher is, that he expects all hurt and benefit from himself.” Epictetus, “The Enchiridion”

and not want to commit suicide.

If it were true, their desire to commit suicide and their success or failure in attempting it is already written in their genes and neurons. If determinism is true, nobody is free to want anything, decide anything or perform anything they were not already fated to feel, desire, choose and do.

I've made this point many times and not received responses. The end run of determinism is that you could not do otherwise than what the past dictated. The determinist, standing at the top of a tall building, should have no fear. He could not jump unless the universe was already aligned to say that he would, and neither could he avoid jumping if that was the will of the universe. There would be no reason the true believer should not try to jump, as he would be prevented from jumping if it was not destined to happen, and could not avoid jumping if the past had lined up to make the jump unavoidable.

But, all of us standing on that ledge have fear, and rightly so. Not only do we know that we might slip and fall, but that we might decide to jump.

[LuckyR]

That really doesn't logically follow.
Whether your decisions are autonomous or predetermined, they are exactly as good or bad as they are, with no 'control group' of decisions made by the alternate method - nothing to compare with.

Not surprisingly, it has been shown that doubting free will causes people to behave badly. I don't know if this study occurred in a universe fully determined or not, as you say. But, yes, in fact, believing in your own free will is important and useful, and telling people they lack free will is dangerous, right here in this universe, however it may be constructed. Study participants were either shown reading material that told them about determinism or not. Those exposed to determinism were more likely to cheat and less likely to want to help others.

https://mindhacks.com/2013/09/29/the-ef ... free-will/

And the results are striking. One study reported that participants who had their belief in free will diminished were more likely to cheat in a math test. In another, US psychologists reported that people who read Crick’s thoughts on free will (against free will) said they were less likely to help others.

This is what I was getting at. Further, this exposure to determinism was at the surface level, and I contend that belief at a deeper level is far more harmful. I know from my past experience that I suffered in the world when I thought events were simply happening to me, and I looked outside myself for reasons I was happy or unhappy. I wasn't embracing determinism, but neither was I embracing my free will. My journey in philosophy has been all about turning that perspective around:

“The condition and characteristic of a vulgar person, is, that he never expects either benefit or hurt from himself, but from externals. The condition and characteristic of a philosopher is, that he expects all hurt and benefit from himself.” Epictetus, “The Enchiridion”

If it were true, their desire to commit suicide and their success or failure in attempting it is already written in their genes and neurons. If determinism is true, nobody is free to want anything, decide anything or perform anything they were not already fated to feel, desire, choose and do.

I've made this point many times and not received responses. The end run of determinism is that you could not do otherwise than what the past dictated. The determinist, standing at the top of a tall building, should have no fear. He could not jump unless the universe was already aligned to say that he would, and neither could he avoid jumping if that was the will of the universe. There would be no reason the true believer should not try to jump, as he would be prevented from jumping if it was not destined to happen, and could not avoid jumping if the past had lined up to make the jump unavoidable.

But, all of us standing on that ledge have fear, and rightly so. Not only do we know that we might slip and fall, but that we might decide to jump.

Posters on this Forum vary in their bias towards approaching issues from the more theoretical (philosophical) or more practical (psychological) perspective. This topic is one where the difference is more striking than average. Your post is extremely practical (and thus why it reflects my own view), conversely essentially all attempts to refute it lie in the theoretical camp.