Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

[Rational Atheist]

Here is a simple, yet powerful, argument against the idea that we 'freely' choose our actions.

1. Our thoughts determine our choices.

2. We do not freely choose our thoughts.

3. Therefore, our choices cannot be free.

I don't think anyone would object to premise 1, especially those who believe in free will, since by definition, a "free" choice, if it could exist, requires a person to consciously make it, which by definition involves thought. Premise 2 may be controversial to some, but with a simple thought experiment, it can be proven to be true. If a person could freely choose their thoughts, then they would have to be able to consciously choose what they were going to think before actually thinking it. In other words, there would have to be a time before a person thinks a thought that that thought was consciously chosen by a person, which literally entails the necessity of being able to think a thought before one thinks it. This, of course, is a logical contradiction. Ergo, free will does not exist.

[Miles]

Thinking and acting upon thoughts are 2 distinct things. You've only covered thought and not action. Although thoughts may be derived from other than ourselves we have the option to do or not do.

Who is the "You've" you're talking to?

.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Rational Atheist in post #1]

We do not freely choose our thoughts.

You have not proven your 2nd premise so your conclusion is incorrect.

[Seek]

Mental states are brain states, or at least tied directly to the brain.
Brain states are biological states.
Biological states are physical states.
The physical world is deterministic.
Thus, there are no free choices.

Is everything in the world deterministic?

As in, if you had sufficiently detailed knowledge about the state of the universe and sufficient computational power, could you determine with exact precision what some future state of the universe will be?

Perhaps not. At least if there's true randomness in the universe. But that doesn't mean there is free will, which is based on the idea that there are multiple possible futures.

If we define free will as "the ability to make choices not decided by determinism or randomness", I don't see any logically sound explanation for how free will is possible.

[Adonai Yahweh]

We do not freely choose our thoughts.

I disagree with the 2nd and 3rd point . We can influence our thought process meaning that we have consciously made a decision to think and behave in particular manner . You can be aware of each thought that comes to mind and decided which ones to engage with . For example, if we are aware of the negative thoughts that we tend to have, we can choose to focus on more positive thoughts. We can also choose to engage in activities that promote positive thinking . It also gives excuses to people to just succumb to whatever thought process they may have , which is dangerous , because should a rapist or pedophile just succumb to their though process because they cant choose their thoughts or should they actively try to focus on controlling their sexual desires and seeking professional help ?

[Seek]

I believe free will is one of those questions that cannot be answered by philosophy or science.

[The Tanager]

I believe free will is one of those questions that cannot be answered by philosophy or science.

Why not?

[Seek]

I believe free will is one of those questions that cannot be answered by philosophy or science.

Why not?

First, determinism cannot explain the Big Bang, so there are indeterministic aspects of reality. Second, free will is an aspect of the mind, and the mind is separate from the brain, so science cannot measure properties of the mind. Science cannot observe non-physical things.

[The Tanager]

First, determinism cannot explain the Big Bang, so there are indeterministic aspects of reality. Second, free will is an aspect of the mind, and the mind is separate from the brain, so science cannot measure properties of the mind. Science cannot observe non-physical things.

I think this is support for science not being able to answer the question, but why do you think philosophy can't?

[Tcg]

First, determinism cannot explain the Big Bang, so there are indeterministic aspects of reality. Second, free will is an aspect of the mind, and the mind is separate from the brain, so science cannot measure properties of the mind. Science cannot observe non-physical things.

I think this is support for science not being able to answer the question, but why do you think philosophy can't?

One would need to provide sufficient evidence to establish that "free will is an aspect of the mind, and the mind is separate from the brain" before this bald assertion could be considered support for anything.


Tcg