Is free will an illusion?

[olavisjo]

I find that under a naturalistic philosophy it is impossible for free will to exist, for the simple reason that when we make decisions about things we are performing electrical and chemical reactions in our brains, very much like our computers process data under the control of natural laws, so the outcome of any such process must be strictly determined by past events.
A theist can say that free will is a daily miracle given to us by God, but how can an atheist explain the concept?

[McCulloch]

Free will is an illusion. Since we don't know ahead of time what we will choose, we perceive that we have a free choice. This simple fact is difficult to accept because we like to think of ourselves as free moral agents.

From our own point-of-view, it makes no difference since we cannot determine our choices and we must live with the consequences of our choices.

[JoeyKnothead]

In regards to electrical and chemical signals, we have evidence for such. We have evidence that such signals occur and are involved in the thought processes, as well as the physical actions one undertakes.
What we don't have evidence for is a god miraculously giving us anything.

[olavisjo]

Free will is an illusion. Since we don't know ahead of time what we will choose, we perceive that we have a free choice. This simple fact is difficult to accept because we like to think of ourselves as free moral agents.

From our own point-of-view, it makes no difference since we cannot determine our choices and we must live with the consequences of our choices.

I am glad you cleared that up, I was starting to feel bad about choosing to come here regularly, tormenting and upsetting people, and it turns it is not my choice at all, I can just blame the electrical and chemical reactions in my brain. And yet I have to suffer the consequences for something I had no involvement in. Where is the justice in that? Or is justice also an illusion?

[olavisjo]

In regards to electrical and chemical signals, we have evidence for such. We have evidence that such signals occur and are involved in the thought processes, as well as the physical actions one undertakes.
What we don't have evidence for is a god miraculously giving us anything.

May I assume that you agree with McCulloch that 'Free will is an illusion' and you had no choice but to respond to my post the way you did?

[JoeyKnothead]

In regards to electrical and chemical signals, we have evidence for such. We have evidence that such signals occur and are involved in the thought processes, as well as the physical actions one undertakes.
What we don't have evidence for is a god miraculously giving us anything.

May I assume that you agree with McCulloch that 'Free will is an illusion' and you had no choice but to respond to my post the way you did?

No, I coulda ignored all rational and logical thought, and posted drivel that has no evidence to back it up.

I used my free will to post what reason and logic tell me. That said, there is a certain understanding here that the electro-chemical processes involved with my making my post derived me of the free will to print unproven, unverifiable claims.

When one realizes that all our thoughts are merely the result of electro-chemical mechanisms within the brain, then free will certainly becomes dependent on what those processes tell us.

If one considers free will as a condition derived from a god, then the whole electro-chemical issue becomes moot. To some theists, God trumps science.

[bernee51]

Free will is an illusion. Since we don't know ahead of time what we will choose, we perceive that we have a free choice. This simple fact is difficult to accept because we like to think of ourselves as free moral agents.

From our own point-of-view, it makes no difference since we cannot determine our choices and we must live with the consequences of our choices.

I am glad you cleared that up, I was starting to feel bad about choosing to come here regularly, tormenting and upsetting people, and it turns it is not my choice at all, I can just blame the electrical and chemical reactions in my brain. And yet I have to suffer the consequences for something I had no involvement in. Where is the justice in that? Or is justice also an illusion?

You can blame whatever you want to but it does not appear that McC mentioned anything about "...electrical and chemical reactions in my brain..." so your argument - with McC - is a straw man.

Choices we appear to make are based on worldview. Worldview is based on all those things we think, believe etc about ourselves and where we fit - IOW concepts, mental constructs. We react to these. Buttons get pushed and we react based on our sense of self - reaction (to a multitude of stimuli) is mutually exclusive to 'free will'.

[byofrcs]

I find that under a naturalistic philosophy it is impossible for free will to exist, for the simple reason that when we make decisions about things we are performing electrical and chemical reactions in our brains, very much like our computers process data under the control of natural laws, so the outcome of any such process must be strictly determined by past events.
A theist can say that free will is a daily miracle given to us by God, but how can an atheist explain the concept?

Oddly enough, you haven't actually defined what free will is nor why the "outcome of any such process must be strictly determined by past events" is a bad thing.

If free-will was say the ability to decide contra-causally to coin a car (i.e. run aeth coin down the paintwork of a car causing expensive scratches), then unless you are a bodyshop owner this isn't the nicest of things to contra-causally decide to do but then as you are a Theist so it was your God given right to decide that.

An Atheist, on the other hand, understands that damaging someones paintwork fails the ethic of reciprocity and according to you, the Atheist is in fact doomed to NOT damage the paint work.

The Theist has free will to either coin or not. As it is free will (uncaused) we have no frickin idea what they'll do or why. Every Theist therefore is the embodiment of what I will now call Schrdinger Morality i.e. if no one is looking you have no idea what they are doing but immediately someone sees them then they have decided to coin the car or not.

So, explain to me again why Free-will is good or determinism is bad ? I must have missed it.

The Atheist answer to free will is that we have the ability to capitalize on what were given and this is in fact something we were given and we can still tell right from wrong.

Societies create sets of rules (all societies including animals do this) and our children are taught these (as are the babies of other social grouping animals). These laws form naturally according to the payoff matrixes for particular social structures. Natural selection pretty well determines what is the most appropriate structure for the ecological niche.

Let someone be an arsehole and you'll end up with damaged cars but teach them rules, such as reciprocity and you'll end up with generally nice people. It is a comforting thought that we needn't rely of theists or their god or gods for morality. Society in effect is self regulating.

Imagine you plan to win at a sport or at a subject. You train or learn as appropriate and when the test comes then, well I'll be a monkeys uncle, you do well, win even !.

Amazing but true, your past events, your training and learning allowed you to pass the test. Fact is that if you decided to use your free will and not train or learn then you would have failed. But you know that so you chose to train or learn. In fact once you decided to win then you were determined to operate in a certain way.

So you should have used the free will to NOT decide to win at the sport or subject. Then you would not be compelled to win and what you did not decide to win at. Well gee, this is now starting to be like not collecting stamps being one of the favorite hobbies of Atheists.

The atheist on the other hand has it in their nature to try the sport or subject and sees if they can capitalize on what were given (tall or smart, muscular or whatever). Even better is when society gives everyone the opportunity to try.

The final nail in the coffin of free-will is the zombie weapon. If we create a machine that shoots someone according to which person a Theist picked. The machine is thus using the free will of another and what it actually did was not strictly determined by past events. In effect this is comparing say a modern targeting system (which I imagine the target to be illuminated by a Theist) compared to say victim triggered systems such as a smart mine which clearly does not decide in a free-will way to shove metal balls through someone but functions deterministically.

I'm at a loss as to how the Theist in the first case is different from the land mine in the second. The machine in the first case did not make the decision to kill someone but clearly the machine in the second case did make a decision, though it was deterministic.

In both cases we have a dead body but the decision tree is different. One includes "free will". So why did the theist make that decision to kill the target ? With Theists that is not the question; they have free will. We need not consider the training they are given, they have free will to make the right decision. We do not need to consider their education and the society they are in, because they have the free will to make the right decision.

But we know that is wrong: train someone bad, let bad habits take root then you do not end up with the right decisions no matter what free will theists keep on insisting the person has.

Free will is making the right decision. Hold on - what does "right" actually mean ?.

We make decisions according to rules but we apply different metrics to the rules. If I am thirsty then I drink but if I know the water needs boiling then I can balance my immediate thirst or if I have my children and they need water then I would boil it and give it to them first (children dehydrate faster than adults).

The rules I have and the weights I apply to them are vast and vary according to my culture, learning and evolution. If I was trained to be bad then I have no doubt I would make a very good bad person.

In the end I'm glad I'm an Atheist with a good ethical education because the alternative would seem to be a Theist and having some kind of contra-causal woo-woo spontaneously making decisions is a pretty scary concept. I might as well throw dice.

[McCulloch]

Free will is an illusion. Since we don't know ahead of time what we will choose, we perceive that we have a free choice. This simple fact is difficult to accept because we like to think of ourselves as free moral agents.

From our own point-of-view, it makes no difference since we cannot determine our choices and we must live with the consequences of our choices.

I am glad you cleared that up, I was starting to feel bad about choosing to come here regularly, tormenting and upsetting people, and it turns it is not my choice at all, I can just blame the electrical and chemical reactions in my brain. And yet I have to suffer the consequences for something I had no involvement in. Where is the justice in that? Or is justice also an illusion?

Justice is a useful human concept. There is no natural justice. But humans, being a social animal, have an innate sense of what is fair or just. We have found this concept quite useful in ordering our societies.

Free will is an illusion, but you still make choices. You are the collection of atoms, molecules, cells and organs which make up your body. The decision making part of that body is the brain. Your brain, you, decide whether to read this post and respond or not. There is no way that your decision can be predicted or calculated. Yet, there is no evidence or reason to believe that in the exact same situation, with exactly the same stimulus, you could choose otherwise. You are held to be responsible for the decisions you make, because it is useful to us to do so. We (society) metes out incentives and disincentives for your choices, based on our collective perception of what is good for society in general.

To me it is a moot point whether your decision is free or not. Whether you blame the electrical and chemical reactions, or the flow and processing of ideas and thoughts, or the incorporeal soul for the decisions you make, it is still you who make them.

[Furrowed Brow]

A theist can say that free will is a daily miracle given to us by God, how can an atheist explain the concept?

Im probably in a minority of one atheist on this but I accepts weve got free will. Just not the god given kind.

I pull this particular rabbit out of the hat because as an atheist I accept that something arrives out of absolutely nothing. Be that the universe or virtual particles. I reach that conclusion because I dont accept materialism implies strict causation whereby everything has a cause. I do believe that every explanation requires everything has a cause, but that is a different point.and it does not follow that nature has to be reasonable in this respect.

So I accept it is logically possible for virtual particles to really pop into existence out of nothing. If I can accept that it is not such a stretch to conceive of human consciousness embedded in quantum affects for which there is no prior cause. However, I also have to admit this is o so very irrational.

I dont think free will is an illusion anymore than it is illusory to see the world through cause n effectspectacles and think the world runs only on cause n effect.