Is Free Will an illusion?

[LucasWithLidOff]

I don't really care about swaying people more than pointing out the hypocrisy of the position because i know none of you live your lives by it. And as Def pointed out, the argument for determinism collapses on itself by its own logic.

 

[Rekrul]

Mostly Socratic. The ability to make choices within constraints. But I take it a little bit further because I've found that by changing my thinking I can also change my attitude, in spite of my circumstances.

I don't think that's really an answer. I'm not asking for a description of what you believe. I want to know how you make sense of it. How do you reason your way to the conclusion that your choice making is metaphysical.

Even if we were to say for the sake of argument that you have some metaphysical consciousness from which you reason, how are your choices not ultimately determined by your initial preferences/desires?

For example lets say I love the color blue. I'm asked to choose between a red shirt, and a blue shirt. Obviously, I'm going to choose the blue shirt. So, even if we said that the thought process by which I evaluated my options, and chose was metaphysical, the ultimate choice is going to depend on some preexisting preferences which I can not possibly have chosen.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I don't really care about swaying people more than pointing out the hypocrisy of the position because i know none of you live your lives by it. And as Def pointed out, the argument for determinism collapses on itself by its own logic.

Why you think removing the concept would change how I live my life at all?

No free will doesn't mean I can just sit on a street corner all day and then stroll into a hospital to perform heart surgery just because it was meant to be that way.

 

[TheSauce]

you can do whatever you want but if it breaks the law you will be punished for it. our desires are weighed against what is socially acceptable and the severity of the punishment. your id, ego, and superego all work together in deciding what you ultimately do, and i believe that in itself is free will. society influences our thinking but it doesn't make the final decision after we have evaluated our options. for example paying taxes is free will, we don't have to pay them but we do anyway. if you want to keep your house and car you continue to pay. humans are a social animal and i don't think we should separate social constraints and desires of the id, because in the end they both work together(unless your a sociopath, in which case their decision making is a lot less time consuming).

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

I don't think that's really an answer. I'm not asking for a description of what you believe. I want to know how you make sense of it. How do you reason your way to the conclusion that your choice making is metaphysical.

Even if we were to say for the sake of argument that you have some metaphysical consciousness from which you reason, how are your choices not ultimately determined by your initial preferences/desires?

For example lets say I love the color blue. I'm asked to choose between a red shirt, and a blue shirt. Obviously, I'm going to choose the blue shirt. So, even if we said that the thought process by which I evaluated my options, and chose was metaphysical, the ultimate choice is going to depend on some preexisting preferences which I can not possibly have chosen.

Well for starters, values change over time for a plethora of different reasons. And you won't pick the blue shirt if it doesn't match your pants. Not many things requiring cognition are black or white.

Making decisions based on pre existing conditions is not a proof of determination. A human being is not a robot that continually gives the same output with the same input. There is something more going on here and I think we all know this. Determinism is just the lazy mans approach to it.

It's logically equivalent to "the devil made me do it".

 

[ocean size]

Mostly Socratic. The ability to make choices within constraints. But I take it a little bit further because I've found that by changing my thinking I can also change my attitude, in spite of my circumstances.

But what is the cause of you changing your thinking, if not just a result of other factors previously in play?

 

[minute bull]

Free will or the lack thereof has always befuddled me. I can see no advantage in believing there is no free will. It strikes me as a fruitless chicken and egg argument.

I mean, is it meant to nullify other belief systems? Is that the purpose?

 

[mesomorph]

Free will or the lack thereof has always befuddled me. I can see no advantage in believing there is no free will. It strikes me as a fruitless chicken and egg argument.

I mean, is it meant to nullify other belief systems? Is that the purpose?

Why does there have to be an advantage?
The aim is to get to the truth.

Realizing there's no such thing as free will is totally harmless. No disadvantage either.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Free will or the lack thereof has always befuddled me. I can see no advantage in believing there is no free will. It strikes me as a fruitless chicken and egg argument.

I mean, is it meant to nullify other belief systems? Is that the purpose?

Part of the war against mysticism that I'm still sort of indifferent to myself.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Why does there have to be an advantage?
The aim is to get to the truth.

Realizing there's no such thing as free will is totally harmless. No disadvantage either.

Yet you continually exercise that which you say does not exist, all while claiming I'm the one talking nonsense.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

But what is the cause of you changing your thinking, if not just a result of other factors previously in play?

Yes, but at some point one or more conscious choices were made to change your thinking that take longer to process than your visceral nervous system.

My position is that free will is not the illusion.

The way we perceive time is the illusion, and this much is supported by scientific evidence.

 

[Rekrul]

Well for starters, values change over time for a plethora of different reasons. And you won't pick the blue shirt if it doesn't match your pants. Not many things requiring cognition are black or white.

Okay. So you have some innate preference for having matched clothing? That sort of response is not a refutation of the thought experiment. You just added an extra layer of complexity.

Making decisions based on pre existing conditions is not a proof of determination. A human being is not a robot that continually gives the same output with the same input. There is something more going on here and I think we all know this. Determinism is just the lazy mans approach to it.

Explain how it works then.

If given the choice between two things, will you not choose the thing which you prefer, every time? *Don't say "well after a while you'd get bored and choose the other option", that's just adding an innate preference for novelty, making things more complex, but not any less deterministic. Same goes for the "well people intentionally hurt themselves" route.

 

[minute bull]

Why does there have to be an advantage?
The aim is to get to the truth.

Realizing there's no such thing as free will is totally harmless. No disadvantage either.

Maybe that's your aim. My aim is to understand myself in relation to "the truth," and how such understanding might put me ahead of where I was back when I no comprendo. Thinking as an activity ought to bear fruit, don't you think? I mean, if it is without advantage or disadvantage, is it possible to come to any feasible conclusion? Or is the question the entire point?

It seems to me free will comprises a lot of different elements that get jumbled to the point of white noise.

 

[ocean size]

I mean, is it meant to nullify other belief systems? Is that the purpose?

I don't think so... like much of philosophy it doesn't have pragmatic implications beyond being a mental whack-off. I think the only belief system it nullifies in a broad sense is a non-deterministic one. There is theistic determinism, non-theistic determinism in many flavors. It certainly has some implications for other belief systems though.

To me, it comes down to: If you have a powerful enough computer that can keep track of all of the atoms in the universe, can it predict what will happen in the future, and further, what decisions you will make?

Some say quantum mechanics precludes this, but others say QM only affects determinism up to a certain scale and we still have 'determined probabilities'. It really depends on what your interpretation of QM is (for example whether or not the wavefunction is objectively real).

Then, as for decision making, it depends on whether or not you think the mind arises sole from the brain. If so, I don't see how you can have free will, as your brain is nothing more than atomic interactions that can be predicted. If your 'thoughts' and 'contemplation' arise from atomic interactions that have been occuring in a long chain of cause and effect, even when you 'choose' to change your mind you would have done so anyway. If you believe in a dualistic mind that arises from elsewhere (such as many theists do, soul, etc.), there are cases for and against determinism.

I said in the beginning that it is mental masturbation from a pragmatic standpoint, because even a staunch determinist doesn't hold that a lack of metaphysical free will changes how you live your life in any way. I suppose in a certain light it can seem like a depressing concept, but it need not-

I don't think we will ever build that universe sized computer, so we will never actually determine everything.

 

[ocean size]

Yes, but at some point one or more conscious choices were made to change your thinking that take longer to process than your visceral nervous system.

My position is that free will is not the illusion.

The way we perceive time is the illusion, and this much is supported by scientific evidence.

Where did that conscious choice arise from? From where did that thinking arise? Independently of the brain's neurons?

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Okay. So you have some innate preference for having matched clothing? That sort of response is not a refutation of the thought experiment. You just added an extra layer of complexity.

Explain how it works then.

If given the choice between two things, will you not choose the thing which you prefer, every time? *Don't say "well after a while you'd get bored and choose the other option", that's just adding an innate preference for novelty, making things more complex, but not any less deterministic. Same goes for the "well people intentionally hurt themselves" route.

I honestly don't know how it works. But I do know determinism is false because it can be rejected by logic alone.

I've been pretty clear that I recognize some things as being determined, but a lot of things aren't. Just one thing that fails to be predetermined makes the theory false and in need of reworking.

 

[ocean size]

Yet you continually exercise that which you say does not exist, all while claiming I'm the one talking nonsense.

It seems you are equating agency with free will- if so do you think that is necessarily true?

 

[mesomorph]

Yet you continually exercise that which you say does not exist, all while claiming I'm the one talking nonsense.

No.

You've demonstrated time and time again in this thread that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Rekrul]

I honestly don't know how it works. But I do know determinism is false because it can be rejected by logic alone.

Could you show us your argument then?

I've been pretty clear that some things are determined, but a lot of things aren't. Just one thing that fails to be predetermined makes the theory false.

This isn't a thread about determinism though. It's about free will. The universe could work in a totally random, chaotic way, and free will would still not make any sense.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

No.

You've demonstrated time and time again in this thread that you don't know what you're talking about.

The spaghetti monster determined you would post this prior to the existence of time then?