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.

[The Tanager]

There are only two categories (logically possible options.): caused and uncaused. Randomly determined is simply another determinant factor that belongs in the category of "something determined it." The "something" being randomness. But free willers reject randomness as an option because it robs the will of any freedom to choose. The sine qua non of free will.

If nothing determined it (caused it) then how was it spurred into existence?

Okay, let’s use that phrasing. The will is uncaused. Uncaused about what? Existing? No, we weren’t talking about that (if that is what you mean by "spurred into existence"). Free will isn't about the will existing without a cause. We were talking about choosing X over Y. The will is uncaused concerning choosing X over Y.

[The Tanager]

Based on your clarification above:

• "willing" = The process for making a decision.

• "process" = A will makes a decision.

Therefore, it follows that the willing is the process where a will makes a decision. This concept is still incoherent to me because it fails to define the "will" and offers no explanation for how the will makes a decision apart from indicating that "willing" is the label assigned to this nebulous process.

I didn’t offer that as a definition of the will. Let’s try this one: a faculty of the mind that selects an intended action among various logical possibilities. I think that definition doesn't beg the question in favor of my view or your view (or the believer in randomness).

[bluegreenearth]

I didn’t offer that as a definition of the will. Let’s try this one: a faculty of the mind that selects an intended action among various logical possibilities. I think that definition doesn't beg the question in favor of my view or your view (or the believer in randomness).

Please explain how that faculty of the mind selects something.

[The Tanager]

Please explain how that faculty of the mind selects something.

Choices come before it and it chooses one over the other. The physical apparatus used to accomplish this in material beings would be the brain. Even if one believes the mind and brain are the same, this explanation remains.

[bluegreenearth]

Choices come before it and it chooses one over the other. The physical apparatus used to accomplish this in material beings would be the brain. Even if one believes the mind and brain are the same, this explanation remains.

Yes, but when the faculty of the mind chooses, is there a reason or no reason it selects X over Y?

[Miles]

There are only two categories (logically possible options.): caused and uncaused. Randomly determined is simply another determinant factor that belongs in the category of "something determined it." The "something" being randomness. But free willers reject randomness as an option because it robs the will of any freedom to choose. The sine qua non of free will.

If nothing determined it (caused it) then how was it spurred into existence?

Okay, let’s use that phrasing. The will is uncaused. Uncaused about what? Existing? No, we weren’t talking about that (if that is what you mean by "spurred into existence"). Free will isn't about the will existing without a cause. We were talking about choosing X over Y. The will is uncaused concerning choosing X over Y.

Never said the will is uncaused. The will is a mental power or capacity. One we use to control and direct our thoughts and actions. And it does such controlling and directing because it is caused to. And what it is caused to do is not a byproduct of any free agency, but of previous casual events setting it into play.


.

[The Tanager]

Yes, but when the faculty of the mind chooses, is there a reason or no reason it selects X over Y?

The reason is because it wanted to. That is neither a deterministic reason nor no reason at all.

[The Tanager]

Never said the will is uncaused.

I know; I said it was uncaused. You gave a categorization of things being either caused or uncaused. I said a free will would be a will that was uncaused, in that scheme.

The will is a mental power or capacity. One we use to control and direct our thoughts and actions. And it does such controlling and directing because it is caused to. And what it is caused to do is not a byproduct of any free agency, but of previous casual events setting it into play.

Those are conclusions. Do you have reasoning to support it being true over against the other possibility that it does come from free agency rather than being determined by previous causal events?

[Miles]

The will is a mental power or capacity. One we use to control and direct our thoughts and actions. And it does such controlling and directing because it is caused to. And what it is caused to do is not a byproduct of any free agency, but of previous casual events setting it into play.

Those are conclusions. Do you have reasoning to support it being true over against the other possibility that it does come from free agency rather than being determined by previous causal events?

Until "free agency" is shown to exist I don't accept it as part of any possibility, which leaves determinism as the sole operative.


.

[AgnosticBoy]

Until "free agency" is shown to exist I don't accept it as part of any possibility, which leaves determinism as the sole operative.

Not necessarily. The lack of proof for one thing doesn't automatically prove something else. Hard determinism itself must be proven. Otherwise, the best option is to remain agnostic or adopt some moderate form of determinism.