Why Free Will is an illusion

[Miles]

Interest in free will has usually centered around the affirmation and/or a denunciation of it. Some very interesting thoughts on both sides have come out of these discussions, many well thought out and others not so much. Whatever the case, there's been a frequent problem with some of the terms involved, most often those concerning "free will" and "will."

As I see it, free will is important to many because without it would mean each of is nothing more than an automaton, which is anathema to the notion personal freedom. If I have no freedom of choice how can I be blamed for what I do? For Christians this has the added consequence of robbing the concept of sin/salvation of any meaning. So most people are loath to even entertain the idea of no free will. Free will is almost always regarded as a given.

Any exception to free will is commonly seen as temporary constraint. "I am free to to do this or that unless someone/thing comes and prevents it. Of course this isn't what the issue of free will is about at all. Free will is about the idea that, aside from any external constraints, "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." So I think a decent working definition of "free will" is just that: the ability to do differently if one wished.

Those who most disagree with this are the hard determinists, people claiming that everything we do has a cause. And because everything we do is caused then we could not have done differently, therefore it's absurd to place blame or praise. A pretty drastic notion, and one rejected by almost everyone. So whatever else is said about the issue of free will ultimately it must come down to this very basic level: Are we free to do other than what we chose or not? I say, No you are not. Free will is an illusion. But before going into why, we first need to get rid of the term "choice" because it assumes to be true the condition under consideration, freedom to do what we want. So no use of "choice," "choosing,"chosen," or any other form of the word.


There are only two ways in which actions can take place; completely randomly, or caused. By "completely randomly" I mean absolutely random, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused. This is the most common notion of "random" events: those we are unable to predict and appear to come about by pure chance. The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, appears to occur is at the subatomic level, which has no effect on superatomic events, those at which we operate. And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate anyway; completely randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So that leaves non-randomness as the operative agent of our actions. We do this or that because. . . . And the "cause" in "because" is telling. It signals a deterministic operation at work. What we do is determined by something. Were it not, what we do would be absolutely random in nature: for absolutely no reason at all. But as all of us claim from time to time, we do have reasons for what we do. And these reasons are the causes that negate any randomness.

So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless the causes leading to the event had been different. If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home. The previous chain of cause/effects inexorably determined where I ended up. So to is it with our decisions. We do what we do because all the relevant preceding cause/effect events inexorably led up to that very act and no other. There was no freedom to do any differently.

What does this all mean then? It means that we cannot do any any differently than what we do. Our actions are caused (determined) by previous events and nothing else. Even our wishing to think we could have done otherwise is a mental event that was determined by all the cause/effect events that led to it. We think as we do because. . . . And that "because" can never be any different than what it was. We have no will to do anything other than what we're caused to do. In effect then, the will does not exist, nor does choice, etc..

Of course this means that blame and praise come out as pretty hollow concepts. If you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them? To do so is like blaming or praising a rock for where it lies. It had no "choice" in the matter. Of course we can still claim to have free will if we define the term as being free of external constraints, but that's not really addressing free will, and why free will exists as an issue. The free will issue exists because people claim "I could have done differently if I had wished." Problem is, of course, they didn't wish differently because . . . .

Any disagreements?

[Miles]

Don't know what you mean by "typical sense," but in the sense that it's used in the free will V. determinism debate, Yup.

Yup to what exactly? You are agreeing with me that your definition doesn't help? You are affirming that "being able to wish differently" is a better definition for free will?

It's a confirmation of what I just said; in effect, Yes, you would not be able to wish differently in the first place.

A being can wish for whatever it wants, however, the wanting is determined. If it wasn't, wishing would be a random event.

That doesn't answer my question. If a being's wish is determined, yet has the ability to do something else, does it have free will?

Not following you here. But let me explain it as succinctly as I can. Whatever you do; wish for something, wish for six things, whistle, and/or play the piano, is determined by the chain of cause/effects that inexorably led up to the event of wishing, whistling, wanting etc. You had to wish, whistle, or want as you did.

Actually, unless they're a bit daft, people don't blame such things, but sight them as the cause. People "blaming" ice and rocks, as you've used the word, does not suggest a deliberate act, such as those coming from a sentient being. Or are you suggesting that ice and rocks deliberately set out to disturb people?

No, I am suggesting sighting ice as the cause of accident is blaming ice.

Okay, it's your vernacular, not mine.

That you put quote makes around People "blaming" ice, tells me, by "blame" you are limiting that word to something specific.

Yes I am. I consider the use of "blame" to only be reasonable when people use it to refer to the actions of sentient beings.

As philosophically defined;

"Will, in philosophy, refers to a property of the mind, and an attribute of acts intentionally committed."

Yes, it does not exist. The intentionality is determined.

That's not what the quote says, not directly anyway. There is some steps in your inference that is not immediately obvious. Care to put them up for examination?

You asked, "Does it really mean "will" does not exist, if it was a determined?" to which I gave a decent definition of "will" and then answered your question. See red highlighted sentence above.

Afraid not. We do what we do because we cannot do any differently.

That doesn't matter, at least according to your definition in the OP. We could do something else if we wanted to.

What definition are you alluding to?

[Divine Insight]

And as I asked: if you have another valid option to present, I'm all ears. That you don't, and are only able to claim there are, leads me to conclude only one thing: you don't know of any, and are trying to bluster your way out of this.

I'm not the one who needs to "bluster mys way out of anything". You are. You are the one who made the assertion that Free Will is an illusion. It's up to you to prove that assertion, it's not up to me to prove some other assertion.

Your continued irrelevancies aren't doing you any good, and are making you look kind of foolish.

Making me look foolish to who? To you? Why should I even remotely care about that? I can assure you the feeling is mutual.

Oh my goodness!!!
LOGIC: "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."

What strict principles of validity?

Everything that you believe to be "logical" is based entirely upon your assumptions and premises to begin with.

I've already pointed out that the very existence of anything at all, already violates our notion of "logic". For how could anything have come to be in the first place?

The very fact that we exist to begin defies our very notion of "logic".

You know what. Your continual drifting to other issues, which are neither relevant nor interesting, has compelled me to end this silliness. If you wish, have the last word. I'm beyond caring anymore.

Have a good day.

I kind of figured you'd become scarce when the truly important issues come up. People who come onto the forums proclaiming that they have some profound truth typically shy away from anything that might demonstrate the emptiness of their claims.

Apparently all they want to do is proclaim that they are right and everyone else is wrong and they aren't much interested in whether or not their claims can be backed up.

I mean, let's face it, if your proposed desire for there to be no such thing as free will had any serious merit the sciences would have already been acknowledging the evidence in favor of that conclusion. But obviously they don't.

So you're just an individual with an opinion, no different from anyone else.

When you obtain a Nobel Prize for your work come back and see me.

In the meantime I've already shown where many of your fundamental premises are simply wrong. So don't invest too much money in attempting to obtain a Nobel Prize, chances are real good that your ideas will be rejected by the scientific community as not having a solid foundation, or having already been shown to be invalid assumptions.

[Bust Nak]

It's a confirmation of what I just said; in effect, Yes, you would not be able to wish differently in the first place.

So if wishing is an action that one does, what does it mean to say "the ability to do differently if one wished." One wishes that he can wish differently? One wishes that he can wish that he can wish differently ? Why not just say freewill is "the ability to wish differently?" I think that way is both simpler and more accurate.

Not following you here. But let me explain it as succinctly as I can. Whatever you do; wish for something, wish for six things, whistle, and/or play the piano, is determined by the chain of cause/effects that inexorably led up to the event of wishing, whistling, wanting etc. You had to wish, whistle, or want as you did.

That is only if we don't have freewill, right? Or are you actually saying that is how things actually are, that we don't have freewill?

Yes I am. I consider the use of "blame" to only be reasonable when people use it to refer to the actions of sentient beings.

Being deterministic doesn't stop us from being sentient. So why is it unreasonable to blame people if they have no freewill?

As philosophically defined;

"Will, in philosophy, refers to a property of the mind, and an attribute of acts intentionally committed."

Yes, it does not exist. The intentionality is determined.

That's not what the quote says, not directly anyway. There is some steps in your inference that is not immediately obvious. Care to put them up for examination?

You asked, "Does it really mean "will" does not exist, if it was a determined?" to which I gave a decent definition of "will" and then answered your question. See red highlighted sentence above. [/quote]
But it doesn't tell me why. Why does the intentionality is determined imply will does not exist?

What definition are you alluding to?

The definition of freewill as presented in the OP: "the ability to do differently if one wished."

[Miles]

It's a confirmation of what I just said; in effect, Yes, you would not be able to wish differently in the first place.

So if wishing is an action that one does, what does it mean to say "the ability to do differently if one wished." One wishes that he can wish differently? One wishes that he can wish that he can wish differently ? Why not just say freewill is "the ability to wish differently?" I think that way is both simpler and more accurate.

Obviously my phrasing has confused you. Let me put it this way. When you did something in the past at a specific time, say time X, free will says that at that very moment your mind could have chosen to do something different. Determinism says you couldn't have. You didn't "choose" (decide between two or more apparent options) anything. What you did you were caused to do, which is why you didn't do anything else. You had to do that very thing.

Not following you here. But let me explain it as succinctly as I can. Whatever you do; wish for something, wish for six things, whistle, and/or play the piano, is determined by the chain of cause/effects that inexorably led up to the event of wishing, whistling, wanting etc. You had to wish, whistle, or want as you did.

That is only if we don't have freewill, right? Or are you actually saying that is how things actually are, that we don't have freewill?

I'm saying that is how things actually are, that we don't have freewill.

Yes I am. I consider the use of "blame" to only be reasonable when people use it to refer to the actions of sentient beings.

Being deterministic doesn't stop us from being sentient. So why is it unreasonable to blame people if they have no freewill?

Because like a rock they couldn't have done differently. They HAD to do what they do. Think of it as blaming a child for stabbing another boy, when it was an adult who forcefully put the knife in the child's hand then shoved his hand toward the boy's back. The child had no say in the action, so we don't blame him for the stabbing.

As philosophically defined;

"Will, in philosophy, refers to a property of the mind, and an attribute of acts intentionally committed."

Yes, it does not exist. The intentionality is determined.

That's not what the quote says, not directly anyway. There is some steps in your inference that is not immediately obvious. Care to put them up for examination?

You asked, "Does it really mean "will" does not exist, if it was a determined?" to which I gave a decent definition of "will" and then answered your question. See red highlighted sentence above.

But it doesn't tell me why. Why does the intentionality is determined imply will does not exist?

Well, it doesn't really imply it at all, but is just another instance of determinism. All I'm saying is that like everything else we do, intent to do is just as determined.

What definition are you alluding to?

The definition of freewill as presented in the OP: "the ability to do differently if one wished."

Sorry, but referencing a referenced reference is just too much to deal with.

[jgh7]

What negates praise in determinism? Determinism can just as easily necessitate praise.

If I like good, and I believe I can do good, why should my admiration of a deterministically good person be meaningless? Determinism is causing me to want to be like them and want to do good deeds like them. Determinism is causing my praise for them.

[Miles]

What negates praise in determinism? Determinism can just as easily necessitate praise

Nothing really negates it. It just renders it meaningless. I just don't feel it's reasonable to praise rocks and people for doing what they are made to do. If you do, go right ahead.

If I like good, and I believe I can do good, why should my admiration of a deterministically good person be meaningless?

What are you admiring him for? That he did what he had no choice in doing, which by happenstance turned out to be good?

Determinism is causing me to want to be like them and want to do good deeds like them. Determinism is causing my praise for them.

Yes it is. No one says that what is determined has to be sensible.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 36 by Miles]

How is my praise insensible? I explained the reasons for it. I like what someone else did and I want to do things similar. If you think that's insensible than maybe you're the one with lack of sense.

[Miles]

[Replying to post 36 by Miles]

How is my praise insensible? I explained the reasons for it. I like what someone else did and I want to do things similar. If you think that's insensible than maybe you're the one with lack of sense.

If you feel that a person doing what he is forced to do is praiseworthy then be my guest, praise away.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 36 by Miles]

How is my praise insensible? I explained the reasons for it. I like what someone else did and I want to do things similar. If you think that's insensible than maybe you're the one with lack of sense.

Actually, secular psychologists would indeed proclaim anyone who claims to not have free will to be mentally unhealthy. And rightfully so.

Consider the following.

We offer a human the following choices:

1. You can behave in a manner to contribute to the well-being of all people.

Or

2. You can behave in a manner to harm other people for your own gain.

Then we simply say, "The Choice is yours. What do you chose?"

If the person given these choices replies, "I have no free will, I must harm others for my personal gain. I cannot freely choose to do otherwise."

The person would instantly be recognized as a sociopath and diagnosed as being "mentally ill", or "mentally unstable", or "mentally unhealthy", etc.

They would definitely not be considered to be "Normal or healthy".

And I would totally agree with this assessment.

~~~~~

As a caveat, it may actually be TRUE that there exists psychopaths who can't control their own thoughts and have no "free will".

In other words, it may very well be true that "some people" do not have free will. Perhaps their brains aren't functioning as those in the rest of the healthy population.

Therefore it may very well be true that "some people" do not have "free will".

But clearly that would be a very small minority of humans.

Most humans would be capable of "choosing" to live a life that is compatible with the welfare of society at large and "choosing" not to harm others for their own selfish personal gain.

In short, the vast majority of the population appears to clearly have "Free Will".

But it may be true that there exists those who do not. And we would consider that minority to be "mentally unhealthy", or having some sort of malfunction within their brain.

In short, anyone who claims to not have "Free Will" would clearly be in the extreme minority as far as humans go in general.


Also, if they make that claim we should take them at their word and consider them to be potentially extremely dangerous since they believe that they cannot chose their own actions.

[Bust Nak]

Obviously my phrasing has confused you. Let me put it this way. When you did something in the past at a specific time, say time X, free will says that at that very moment your mind could have chosen to do something different. Determinism says you couldn't have. You didn't "choose" (decide between two or more apparent options) anything. What you did you were caused to do, which is why you didn't do anything else. You had to do that very thing.

Right, the ability to choose differently, as opposed to the ability to choose differently if you choose to.

I'm saying that is how things actually are, that we don't have freewill.

Ok, but as far as I can tell, your arguments for this is that people tend to have reasons for doing things, tend to think in terms of cause and effect. I don't think that's enough to warrant the conclusion that we don't have free will.

Because like a rock they couldn't have done differently. They HAD to do what they do. Think of it as blaming a child for stabbing another boy, when it was an adult who forcefully put the knife in the child's hand then shoved his hand toward the boy's back. The child had no say in the action, so we don't blame him for the stabbing.

But unlike a rock, the boy is a sentient being, so why wouldn't we blame him for the stabbing? Bearing in mind that you "consider the use of "blame" to only be reasonable when people use it to refer to the actions of sentient beings."

Well, it doesn't really imply it at all, but is just another instance of determinism. All I'm saying is that like everything else we do, intent to do is just as determined.

I asked you if 'will' exists in determinism and you said no, but here you are saying 'will' is just another instance of determinism. Shouldn't it be one or the other? Either it doesn't exist in determinism, or it exist as determined 'will.'