No Free Will? Is this a viable philosophy?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

No Free Will? Is this a viable philosophy?

Post #1

Post by Divine Insight »

Most people dismiss solipsism as simply being unworthy of consideration. Solipsism holds that only one person is having an experience and everything else (including all other people) are just an illusion in the mind of the one single person who is imagining life to exist.

Solipsism can't be disproved. We have no way to determine whether other people are actually having an experience. Yet, dispute the fact that it can't be disproved most people dismiss it as simply being a highly unlikely hypothesis. It just seems more rational to believe that all humans and even animals are actually having an experience just like us.

And this is a very rational position to take.

~~~~~

So now, what about the question of "Free Will"?

Is it rational to dismiss the concept and demand that there can be no such thing as "Free Will"?

Well, we can ask what that would mean.

If there is no such thing as "Free Will", then J.R.R. Tolkien had no choice but to write "The Lord of the Rings" precisely as he wrote it. He could not be credited with having any creativity because ultimately he didn't even come up with it. He was just doing what he deterministic had no choice but to do. Frodo Baggins and Gollum were determined to be characters in this fantasy billions of years ago. Potentially it was carved in stone at the Big Bang according to hardcore determinism.

Not only that, but the same it true of everything, including the Christian Bible. Every jot and tittle of the Bible would have needed to have been determined by the universe long before humans (who have no free will of their own) would be determined to write it out precisely as we see it today, including all of disagreeing versions.

Same is true of Greek mythology too, of course, and everything else that any human has ever done. Every song, comedy act, you name it. Everything would have needed to be predetermined from the dawn of time.

Question for debate, "Does this make any more sense than solipsism?"

Is it even remotely reasonable to hypothesize that humans have no free will, meaning that everything they do has already been determined ahead of time? :-k
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Post #21

Post by Miles »

jgh7 wrote: So does determinism negate free-will? Does it negate creativity?
First of all, I apologize for not responding to this post before answering your last one.

As for your question here, yes, determinism does negate free-will.

Free-will to me is directly related to our ability to think. It is literally synonymous to me with thinking. "I think therefore I am". Free-will is nothing more than thinking, and our ability to think is independent of whether the world is deterministic or not.

While free will is related to our thinking, in truth it is not related to our ability to think. Free will is sometimes thought of as the ability to have done differently if we wished. That instead of going to school in the morning one could just as well have gone to the park. Well, one couldn't have. One was destined to go to school and nowhere else. For an explanation see my OP HERE<--
Creativity is thinking of something new (a very rudimentary and possibly poor definition, but I'll stick to it). I don't think determinism negates creativity either.
If creativity is in the sense I think you mean, like it or not, determinism does negate it.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #22

Post by Divine Insight »

Miles wrote: While free will is related to our thinking, in truth it is not related to our ability to think. Free will is sometimes thought of as the ability to have done differently if we wished. That instead of going to school in the morning one could just as well have gone to the park. Well, one couldn't have. One was destined to go to school and nowhere else. For an explanation see my OP HERE<--
But everything argued in your thread assumes a premise of a purely materialistic existence.

In that sense I totally agree with you.

If we accept the premise of a purely materialistic existence, then yes, we must accept the conclusions you draw from that premise.

However, there are many other problems with assuming a purely materialistic existence as well. So there's no need to assume that premise to start with.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Post #23

Post by Miles »

Divine Insight wrote:
Miles wrote: While free will is related to our thinking, in truth it is not related to our ability to think. Free will is sometimes thought of as the ability to have done differently if we wished. That instead of going to school in the morning one could just as well have gone to the park. Well, one couldn't have. One was destined to go to school and nowhere else. For an explanation see my OP HERE<--
But everything argued in your thread assumes a premise of a purely materialistic existence.

In that sense I totally agree with you.

If we accept the premise of a purely materialistic existence, then yes, we must accept the conclusions you draw from that premise.
I take this as your admission that determinism is true, at least on a purely materialistic existence, one whose operation is grounded in atoms, molecules, and everything they form.
However, there are many other problems with assuming a purely materialistic existence as well. So there's no need to assume that premise to start with.
Start your list.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #24

Post by Divine Insight »

Miles wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:
Miles wrote: While free will is related to our thinking, in truth it is not related to our ability to think. Free will is sometimes thought of as the ability to have done differently if we wished. That instead of going to school in the morning one could just as well have gone to the park. Well, one couldn't have. One was destined to go to school and nowhere else. For an explanation see my OP HERE<--
But everything argued in your thread assumes a premise of a purely materialistic existence.

In that sense I totally agree with you.

If we accept the premise of a purely materialistic existence, then yes, we must accept the conclusions you draw from that premise.
I take this as your admission that determinism is true, at least on a purely materialistic existence, one whose operation is grounded in atoms, molecules, and everything they form.
Absolutely. I agree that if you begin with the premise that all that exists are atoms and molecules bouncing around, then you are necessarily going to need to end up with the conclusion that all that exists are a bunch of atoms and molecules bouncing around.

I would think that should be obvious. ;)
Miles wrote:
However, there are many other problems with assuming a purely materialistic existence as well. So there's no need to assume that premise to start with.
Start your list.
Premise 1.) You are having an experience.

I claim that the truth of this premise is self-evident. It it's not self-evident to you then I must conclude that I am conversing with a computer AI program.

Question #1: If all you are is a collection of atoms and molecules (or matter and energy) that itself does not possess an innate ability to have an experience, then please explain just what it is that is having an experience.

I very much look forward to your reply to this question.

Premise 2.) You are having the illusion of experiencing thoughts and making choices.


I claim that the truth of this premise is self-evident. It it's not self-evident to you then I must conclude that I am conversing with a computer AI program that is totally unaware of its own thought processes.

Question #2: If all you are is a collection of atoms and molecules (or matter and energy) that itself does not possess an innate ability to experience an illusion, then please explain just what it is that is having the experience of this illusion.

I very much look forward to your reply.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Post #25

Post by Miles »

Divine Insight wrote:
Miles wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:
Miles wrote: While free will is related to our thinking, in truth it is not related to our ability to think. Free will is sometimes thought of as the ability to have done differently if we wished. That instead of going to school in the morning one could just as well have gone to the park. Well, one couldn't have. One was destined to go to school and nowhere else. For an explanation see my OP HERE<--
But everything argued in your thread assumes a premise of a purely materialistic existence.

In that sense I totally agree with you.

If we accept the premise of a purely materialistic existence, then yes, we must accept the conclusions you draw from that premise.
I take this as your admission that determinism is true, at least on a purely materialistic existence, one whose operation is grounded in atoms, molecules, and everything they form.
[strike]Absolutely. I agree that if you begin with the premise that all that exists are atoms and molecules bouncing around, then you are necessarily going to need to end up with the conclusion that all that exists are a bunch of atoms and molecules bouncing around.

I would think that should be obvious. ;)[/strike]
Miles wrote:
However, there are many other problems with assuming a purely materialistic existence as well. So there's no need to assume that premise to start with.
Start your list.
Premise 1.) You are having an experience.


Question #1: If all you are is a collection of atoms and molecules (or matter and energy) that itself does not possess an innate ability to have an experience, then please explain just what it is that is having an experience.
Gotta show the evidence of your claim:"you. . . are . . . a collection of atoms and molecules that itself does not possess an innate ability to have an experience."


Premise 2.) You are having the illusion of experiencing thoughts and making choices.
What would constitute having the illusion of experiencing thoughts? That I'm not really having the thoughts I'm having?
Question #2: If all you are is a collection of atoms and molecules (or matter and energy) that itself does not possess an innate ability to experience an illusion, then please explain just what it is that is having the experience of this illusion.
I submit that the sentient being does possess an innate ability to experience an illusion.

Is this it then?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #26

Post by Divine Insight »

Miles wrote: Gotta show the evidence of your claim:"you. . . are . . . a collection of atoms and molecules that itself does not possess an innate ability to have an experience."
I don't need to. If you concede the innate ability of atoms and molecules to have an experience, then I'm done. ;)
Miles wrote: I submit that the sentient being does possess an innate ability to experience an illusion.

Is this it then?
Again, if you concede to that then I'm done. You've already conceded my points.

Apparently you don't seem to understand the significance of this.

The will belongs to the entity that is having the experience NOT to the thoughts.

Therefore all of your arguments that all thoughts are necessarily "caused" has absolutely nothing at all to do with "Free Will", because the "cause" of thought has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not the sentient entity acts on them.

In fact, this goes to the very heart of Buddhism. The Buddhist have always held that you are not your thoughts. Therefore the "cause" of thoughts arising has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not you act on them.

They go into this in depth when they discuss the topic of transcendental meditation. It is in fact, the river of thoughts that they "transcend" when they enter into this state of conscious awareness. So your argument that all "thoughts" have a "cause" is totally irrelevant to the question of free will. It's totally unimportant what actually gives rise to thoughts. All that matters is which thoughts you act on.

Because in this case (given the premises you have just accepted) it's not the thoughts that are doing the choosing. It is the entity that is having the experience that does the choosing.

Your entire philosophy is based on the idea that thoughts do the choosing. You've totally ignored the agent that is actually having the experience of sentience.

Like I say, your very own premise forces the conclusion you arrive at.

If you start with a premise that there's no one behind the wheel of the car, then you are going to end up with the necessary conclusion that there is no one behind the wheel of the car.

And that's precisely what you end up with when you begin with a premise of a purely materialistic existence. This is why the mystics recognized that a purely materialistic premise won't work. The entity that is having the experience must be premised first.

Mystics start with the premise, "I am". <--- the only thing they can know for certain.

Secular materialists start with the premise, "Atoms exist". <--- Something they have absolute no clue is even true.

Ironically, with the discoveries of quantum mechanics and modern science the very existence of atoms has become highly questionable. Apparently all they amount to are mystical waves of possibility to which we assign quantitative probabilities, but we have absolutely no clue how it all works because it totally defies our very cherished notion of "logic".

Yet here you are attempting to claim that "logic" should be the only thing we can turn to that is dependable. Yet, there really is no reason to depend on our notion of "logic" in any case, because clearly the universe doesn't seem to give a hoot about our notion of "logic".

The Big Bang didn't give a hoot. And the quantum realm doesn't give a hoot. Reality apparently doesn't abide by our human rules of "logic". Yet you seem to be demanding that reality must adhere to your notion of what constitutes "logical thinking".

Why? Why should reality bow to your desires?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #27

Post by Divine Insight »

Miles wrote: I submit that the sentient being does possess an innate ability to experience an illusion.
I need to make an additional statement with regard to your above position.

Actually, if I were to accept the premise and hypotheses that material atoms are capable of becoming "sentient" in terms of being fully aware of their own existence (i.e. in the form of both animals and humans), then why should I not also accept that the the very same feedback mechanism that gave rise to their magical property of sentience couldn't also give rise to freedom from determinism.

After all, a self-referenced feedback system could indeed free itself from any mechanical determinism because its mechanism for making decisions would no longer be dependent upon the purely mechanical environment. In other words, it would now have access to the quite mysterious "emergent properties" of it's very own sentient feedback loop. A phenomena that would be totally removed from any mechanical cause and effect.

After all, I would already be accepting that the very property of sentience itself had already succeeded in this mysterious magical task. So accepting that free will "emerged" in the same manner wouldn't be much of a stretch.

So I "kind of" retract my agreement that in a totally materialistic world there could be no free will. I say, "kind of", because originally my position was that even sentience couldn't arise in a purely materialistic world. However, if I were to consider that hypothesis as a potential premise, then I see no reason to accept the hypothesis that free will could also "emerge" in the very same manner.

So there you have it.

It still comes down to the premises that you are willing to accept.

In fact, you continually appeal to "logic" but actually logic is meaningless until unproven premises have first been accepted. Only then can you proceed to apply "logical reasoning" from there.

Because of this, no matter how "logical" you think your reasoning might be, it's always going to be totally dependent on the underlying premises that you have assumed before you even began your journey into "logical reasoning".

Logic is totally useless without a premise from which to build future reasoning.

So logical reasoning is totally dependent upon unprovable premises in any case.

All logical reasoning suffers from this fatal foundational flaw.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Post #28

Post by Miles »

Divine Insight wrote:
Miles wrote: Gotta show the evidence of your claim:"you. . . are . . . a collection of atoms and molecules that itself does not possess an innate ability to have an experience."
I don't need to. If you concede the innate ability of atoms and molecules to have an experience, then I'm done. ;)
I don't know if you lack the ability to debate competently, don't care to, or simply find it amusing not to, whatever case, you no longer interest me. Prattle on as you must, I won't be watching.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #29

Post by Divine Insight »

Miles wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:
Miles wrote: Gotta show the evidence of your claim:"you. . . are . . . a collection of atoms and molecules that itself does not possess an innate ability to have an experience."
I don't need to. If you concede the innate ability of atoms and molecules to have an experience, then I'm done. ;)
I don't know if you lack the ability to debate competently, don't care to, or simply find it amusing not to, whatever case, you no longer interest me. Prattle on as you must, I won't be watching.
That suits me just fine. I've already exposed the flaws in your argument. All you do is accept a premise and then conclude that the premise is true.

That's an extremely elementary error in logical thinking. Albeit a very common error as well. So don't feel too bad about it. ;)

In fact, based on your conclusion you shouldn't feel anything about it since, according to you, you had no choice but to come to the conclusions you've come to. According to you, you have no free will to do otherwise.

So you're excused. I may not accept your arguments wholesale, but I will accept your personal claim to have no free will. That much I am willing to grant to you.

I would never argue with anyone who claims that they personally have no free will. They are probably right about that. ;)
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: No Free Will? Is this a viable philosophy?

Post #30

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 19 by Divine Insight]
Divine Insight wrote: I think the argument I've given in the OP is already pretty strong that the world cannot be fully predetermined.
Blastcat wrote:I didn't see an argument.

What I read was your incredulity about a strange kind of consequence that you cannot prove. If you make an argument, I will be very glad indeed to read it over very carefully.

Cheers.
Divine Insight wrote:Exactly what kind of an argument were you expecting? :-k
A logical one.

In philosophy, a logical argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident. The general structure of an argument is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion.

What you offered in the OP was one premise and a conclusion, but no way for us to connect the two. Whatever that's called, it's not a logical argument. Maybe I should have qualified, I didn't see a logical argument.

I always just assume that people want to make logical arguments.

Post Reply