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?
Is free will an illusion?
Moderator: Moderators
Is free will an illusion?
Post #1"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."
C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis
Post #241
Okay, let us assume that there was a first strand of DNA that reproduced, and this DNA evolved to become a human that performs conscious acts everyday.joeyknuccione wrote: I was trying to dispel the notion that DNA acts according to its "knowledge" (application of information). Where DNA acts according to its physical properties, there's no inherent "knowledge" as is so often implied when some use the term information. I fear some will conflate the term knowledge here as a conscious act.
Then somewhere along this long journey, there must have been a first conscious act. Or would you say that the first conscious act was just a partial conscious act that also evolved to become a fully conscious act? Or are our conscious acts still only partially conscious, and we will never be 100% conscious?
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."
C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #242
Can you measure consciousness? Can you even define it? I cannot. We all have some kind of fuzzy notion of what consciousness is. Humans commit conscious acts, trees do not. Where do you draw the line? Sea squirts? Ants? Dogs? Chimpanzees?olavisjo wrote: Okay, let us assume that there was a first strand of DNA that reproduced, and this DNA evolved to become a human that performs conscious acts everyday.
Then somewhere along this long journey, there must have been a first conscious act. Or would you say that the first conscious act was just a partial conscious act that also evolved to become a fully conscious act? Or are our conscious acts still only partially conscious, and we will never be 100% conscious?
As in most cases where a definitive line cannot be drawn, I strongly suspect that it is a matter of degree not a yes/no on/off kind of thing.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
Post #243
No you don't get the point I was making. If I get a dice with 1000 surfaces, what is the chance that I roll 666? The chance is 1/1000 = 0.1%. So does this mean that if you give me such a dice there is only a 0.1% chance that I roll 666? Only on the first roll. I can however roll the dice my entire life. What are the odds of me rolling 666 if I roll this dice for an entire year? 100% and probably multiple times. Now roll this dice for a billion years and it's still a 100% even if it would have a billion more sides (that means a probability of 1/1,000,000,000,000 = 0.000000000001% of happening). Probabilities mean nothing when stretched to enough time. The universe has given us enough time so far.olavisjo wrote:You mention "infinite". It is impossible for the natural world to exist for an infinite amount of time for several reasons, one of which is entropy. So if the universe had existed for an infinite amount of time in any form it would have arrived at a state of "heat death" a long time ago. So there must exist some supernatural law that allows entropy to be reversed, a free lunch.
There is also another thing here. You give me a dice with 1000 sides and I roll 756. What are the odds of me rolling 756? 0.1%. That means there is a 99.9% chance that I would have rolled any other number. Does this therefore mean that the chance of me rolling 756 is so small that there is no way that I could ever have possibly rolled this number? No. Because I did. Regardless of the odds of us being here, we are here. What the chances are is not relevant, because showing the chances are incredibly low won't make us suddenly go *poof* and disappear.
Who says the universe has? And if it did, who says it would? These are just assumptions you base on a misinterpretation of entropy. You assume that all systems are decaying eventually, so the universe would too. You apply thermodynamics without paying attention to one of the most important laws in that field: The first law of Thermodynamics, which states the conservation of energy.olavisjo wrote:Science has shown that energy flows from useful to useless forms. So if the universe had existed for an infinite amount of time in any form it would have arrived at a state of "heat death" a long time ago. So there must exist some supernatural law that allows entropy to be reversed, a free lunch. So we can conclude that something supernatural does exist.
Also, if you would be right in your assumption.... how would a decaying universe proof that the supernatural exists? And is God decaying too?
What? Infinity is god now? That boggles the mind.. I don't understand what you are pointing out here...olavisjo wrote:It is very hard to wrap ones mind around the infinite. Just imagine if you and I get into space ships that can move a lot faster than the speed of light and we move in opposite directions for an infinite amount of time, how far away from each other could we get before we arrive at the edge of the universe and what would be beyond that?
So if the infinite can exist, why would this infinite not be aware of us, why would he not be able to manipulate our universe the way we manipulate the computer in front of us? Why would he not be able to give us the ability to write a novel?
How does the fact that in mathematics we have functions where x comes close to 1 to the infinite but never reaches 1 prove the existence of it being aware that we are calculating with it? How does the fact that 1 divided by 3 is 0,333~ prove that your god exists? This makes no sense.
I've never had a theist say so directly that they accept nonsenseolavisjo wrote:But I do agree with you, that an infinite God makes no sense, and I am fairly confident that I will never truly understand that concept, but it is the only possibility. So I just accept it.

Isn’t this enough? Just this world?
Just this beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable natural world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it with the invention
Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
- Tim Minchin
Just this beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable natural world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it with the invention
Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
- Tim Minchin
The absolute
Post #244Hi
The is no absolute self, then free will has no owner. And therefore it is free.
How can a free thing be possessed? Therefore it is a thing that maks the self not important, it is the free will that takes precidence over the self. There can be free will if there is not person who possesses it. You can have free will if you make yourself complete with it's essence. What I mean by this is your possession must transform, so that it no longer matters to the free will if you possess it or not. Just like a horse that is happy to pull a cart, does the horse feel free?
If the horse is not happy, he will not pull.
Most whiped horses do not pull like a happy horse does, the horse is free. The horse is free becuse it can refuse to pull, you cannot force the horse to pull. Thus it is the horses free will that pulls the cart.
Just be being
Berty
The is no absolute self, then free will has no owner. And therefore it is free.
How can a free thing be possessed? Therefore it is a thing that maks the self not important, it is the free will that takes precidence over the self. There can be free will if there is not person who possesses it. You can have free will if you make yourself complete with it's essence. What I mean by this is your possession must transform, so that it no longer matters to the free will if you possess it or not. Just like a horse that is happy to pull a cart, does the horse feel free?
If the horse is not happy, he will not pull.
Most whiped horses do not pull like a happy horse does, the horse is free. The horse is free becuse it can refuse to pull, you cannot force the horse to pull. Thus it is the horses free will that pulls the cart.
Just be being
Berty
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: The absolute
Post #245Yet, the horse is not free. It is bound by it's attachment to the cart. Where the horse goes, so does the cart. It is only when it frees itself from it's attachment to the cart can it truly be free.Tharpa wrote:Hi
The is no absolute self, then free will has no owner. And therefore it is free.
How can a free thing be possessed? Therefore it is a thing that maks the self not important, it is the free will that takes precidence over the self. There can be free will if there is not person who possesses it. You can have free will if you make yourself complete with it's essence. What I mean by this is your possession must transform, so that it no longer matters to the free will if you possess it or not. Just like a horse that is happy to pull a cart, does the horse feel free?
If the horse is not happy, he will not pull.
Most whiped horses do not pull like a happy horse does, the horse is free. The horse is free becuse it can refuse to pull, you cannot force the horse to pull. Thus it is the horses free will that pulls the cart.
Just be being
Berty
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: The absolute
Post #246Unfortunately we are humans with attachments and so does every living thing.goat wrote:Yet, the horse is not free. It is bound by it's attachment to the cart. Where the horse goes, so does the cart. It is only when it frees itself from it's attachment to the cart can it truly be free.Tharpa wrote:Hi
The is no absolute self, then free will has no owner. And therefore it is free.
How can a free thing be possessed? Therefore it is a thing that maks the self not important, it is the free will that takes precidence over the self. There can be free will if there is not person who possesses it. You can have free will if you make yourself complete with it's essence. What I mean by this is your possession must transform, so that it no longer matters to the free will if you possess it or not. Just like a horse that is happy to pull a cart, does the horse feel free?
If the horse is not happy, he will not pull.
Most whiped horses do not pull like a happy horse does, the horse is free. The horse is free becuse it can refuse to pull, you cannot force the horse to pull. Thus it is the horses free will that pulls the cart.
Just be being
Berty
The horse evolved to live on the plains of the Americas where it is truly free.
See it all depends on what you mean by "free".
Hi
Post #247Thanks for the insight
A horse pulling a cart is not physically free but it can have free will.
A horse well looked after can have a much better life than one in the natural wild.
It is not allways the case of a horse happily working for it's food and shelter, health benifits, I am not arguing what is natural.
Free will has nothing to do with physical freedom. If you desire to be ten years old again you can't, that is an example of not having physical freedom. A motor vehical gives you the ability to travel more easily, freedom of mobility. Free will is different.
We have the free will to deire things we do not have. So that when we have the physical means we can obtain the things we desire. If someone tells us we shouldn't desire certain things, we have no free will.
It is obvious that the thing is not desired, if it is not obtained, the physical freedom is possessed. Someone who does not possess free will can't obtain the thing because they cannot desire it. And it can happen if one person takes away free will by not allowing someone to acheive a thing that is within their physical means.
Good Luck
Albert
A horse pulling a cart is not physically free but it can have free will.
A horse well looked after can have a much better life than one in the natural wild.
It is not allways the case of a horse happily working for it's food and shelter, health benifits, I am not arguing what is natural.
Free will has nothing to do with physical freedom. If you desire to be ten years old again you can't, that is an example of not having physical freedom. A motor vehical gives you the ability to travel more easily, freedom of mobility. Free will is different.
We have the free will to deire things we do not have. So that when we have the physical means we can obtain the things we desire. If someone tells us we shouldn't desire certain things, we have no free will.
It is obvious that the thing is not desired, if it is not obtained, the physical freedom is possessed. Someone who does not possess free will can't obtain the thing because they cannot desire it. And it can happen if one person takes away free will by not allowing someone to acheive a thing that is within their physical means.
Good Luck
Albert
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Hi
Post #248Does the horse have free will when someone binds it without it's choice.Tharpa wrote:Thanks for the insight
A horse pulling a cart is not physically free but it can have free will.
A horse well looked after can have a much better life than one in the natural wild.
It is not allways the case of a horse happily working for it's food and shelter, health benifits, I am not arguing what is natural.
Free will has nothing to do with physical freedom. If you desire to be ten years old again you can't, that is an example of not having physical freedom. A motor vehical gives you the ability to travel more easily, freedom of mobility. Free will is different.
We have the free will to deire things we do not have. So that when we have the physical means we can obtain the things we desire. If someone tells us we shouldn't desire certain things, we have no free will.
It is obvious that the thing is not desired, if it is not obtained, the physical freedom is possessed. Someone who does not possess free will can't obtain the thing because they cannot desire it. And it can happen if one person takes away free will by not allowing someone to acheive a thing that is within their physical means.
Good Luck
Albert
If you put the cart before the horse, would it chose to be bound to it?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
horse behind the cart
Post #249Hi
It is not the horses's choise to be bound to a cart.
I may not have made a comment about general freedom though.
It was meant to be an example of the horse's will to pull. Free or otherwise.
Weather the horse is happy or not is another issue.
If it is bound to a cart, maybe it desires to pull? My horse loves to pull and to be riden (or so it would appear). However it is not his will to be bound.
There is a cliche, you can bring a horse to watter but you cannot force him to drink.
The horse has free will because he can lie down and refuse to pull, it happends.
Fundamentally all beings have free will.
In cases of psychological abuse, it comes to a point where people are brain-washed, tricked, deceived, and they loose their will.
What was the point of this topic again?
To give someone will is important through encouragement and positive reinforcement.
Be just being
Berty
It is not the horses's choise to be bound to a cart.
I may not have made a comment about general freedom though.
It was meant to be an example of the horse's will to pull. Free or otherwise.
Weather the horse is happy or not is another issue.
If it is bound to a cart, maybe it desires to pull? My horse loves to pull and to be riden (or so it would appear). However it is not his will to be bound.
There is a cliche, you can bring a horse to watter but you cannot force him to drink.
The horse has free will because he can lie down and refuse to pull, it happends.
Fundamentally all beings have free will.
In cases of psychological abuse, it comes to a point where people are brain-washed, tricked, deceived, and they loose their will.
What was the point of this topic again?
To give someone will is important through encouragement and positive reinforcement.
Be just being
Berty
Re: Is free will an illusion?
Post #250About sums it up. I am perfectly content to say that I am no more than the sum of the pattern of my component atoms and their inevitable interactions with the natural world set in motion by the immutable clockwork of the laws of physics, winding down to a single, inescapable outcome. Will is a an illusion, free or otherwise. We are and do as the motions of waves and subatomic particles command us to do, no more and no less and no detours.olavisjo wrote: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.
No they can't, at least not under the traditional version of an all powerful, all knowing, all creating God. Such a being precludes free will by it's mere existence.A theist can say that free will is a daily miracle given to us by God, but how can an atheist explain the concept?