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?

[Goat]

You are still making a lot of assumptions... that this 'uncaused and unpredictiable' effect can not have an effect on the macro level. How can your demonstrate that?

As I said, at least to the best of my current knowledge: A single undirected atomic decay event has no effect on the macro world. And no, I can't demonstrate it. My understanding is based on readings I did a few years ago where this was asserted. Sorry I don't have more to offer.

Does a singular undirected atomic decay event have not effect on the macro world?

What if it strikes some DNA and causes a mutation, which has happened

That can cause cancer in a cell , or it can change a whole species.

[olavisjo]

So as I understand it, the use of quantum in computing refers to those units, whatever they may be, that act as binary on-off signals. They can be any size. As to the quantum effect I was speaking of, which is indeterministic and uncaused, this is atomic decay. Michael Shermer in his book The science of good and evil p. 122, puts it well.

The uncaused nature resident in quantum mechanics deals with the decay process of a particular atom.

A potassium atoms decays into an argon atoms, but it is impossible to know which particular atom will decay. The decay process is, quite literally, uncaused and unpredictable. It is truly indetermined.

So it is only these quantum actions I was referring to---specifically atomic decay--not those whose quanta nature exists above the atomic level. Therefore, some quantum effects can affect the macro world, but unless specifically designed to do those I spoke of do not. . . . at least to the best of my current knowledge

That could be said about a lot of things...

The uncaused nature resident in public companies deals with the doubling process of a particular stock.

A public company will double in value over the course of time, but it is impossible to know which particular stock will double. The doubling process is, quite literally, uncaused and unpredictable. It is truly indetermined.

Just because something appears to be random, does not mean that it is. A statistical analysis of the digits in the decimal representation of the number pi, will be no different than a pseudo random string of digits, yet pi is hardly random.

Olavisjo's rule-> There are no random events, if you look long and hard enough for a cause, you will find one. Randomdidit is a false god.

In the words of the poet...
"Given the many times I've asked some atheists to offer verifiable evidence for their uncaused events claims, I find that none has ever been given."

[olavisjo]

But when assembled into an animal these can be considered as having some measure of free will by the animal's deciding to do or not do something.

The animal can not decide to do anything.
The animals behavior is strictly determined by the electrical and chemical reactions in its nervous system, so the animals response to stimuli is not a decision, it is only a reflex response.
It is the same with the human animal. You are not free to decide anything, you only respond to the world the way your electrical and chemical reactions make you respond. And the idea that you are free to do anything is just an illusion.

I am not making this stuff up, this is doctrine right out of the atheist bible. So my question to you is "Are you going to trust your own intuition or the reasoning of people who, by their own admission, are incapable of reasoning freely"?

You keep asking for evidence, yet the problem is not a lack of evidence, the problem is that you lack the ability to see the evidence.

You believe that atoms can spontaneously become self aware, yet there is no evidence that such a thing can occur. So why the double standard of evidence?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 18 Post 172:

But when assembled into an animal these can be considered as having some measure of free will by the animal's deciding to do or not do something.

The animal can not decide to do anything.
The animals behavior is strictly determined by the electrical and chemical reactions in its nervous system, so the animals response to stimuli is not a decision, it is only a reflex response.
It is the same with the human animal.

To a point. As my breathing example shows, many animals can hold their breath at will.

You are not free to decide anything, you only respond to the world the way your electrical and chemical reactions make you respond.

Yet I can still hold my breath when I choose. I agree this decision is a result of the electro-chemical reactions, but contend my decision is still a form of free will, in that these reactions ultimately resulted in my expressing my desire to do or not do something.

I admit you're closer to accurate, but still contend my take has some validity.

And the idea that you are free to do anything is just an illusion.

I think you have me beat one one "level", but I have you beat on the "level" of a practical matter.

You keep asking for evidence, yet the problem is not a lack of evidence, the problem is that you lack the ability to see the evidence.

I don't see the issue of evidence as a problem, but one of philosophy. I simply can't ignore the fact I have some limited free will in how I breathe.

Strictly speaking, you're correct, yet I contend, if only as a matter of philosophy my take has validity. These electro-chemical reactions combine to offer me some measure of free will.

You believe that atoms can spontaneously become self aware, yet there is no evidence that such a thing can occur.

The evidence points to atoms assembling into a "spontaneously self aware" animal. I think we can both agree the level of "self aware" is dependent on the animal, but that humans at least possess this awareness of self.

So why the double standard of evidence?

No double standard. You're case is, IMO, closer, but doesn't fully consider the fact we can control our breathing in some small fashion.

I am fully prepared to retract if you can somehow defeat my example of breathing. I will also retract if a moderator thinks my angle is inaccurate or off the mark.

If you say, "joey, stop breathing for a few seconds right now" I can decide to do just that, or continue to breathe normally. Isn't that free will?

(edit for clarificational purposes)

[Miles]

That could be said about a lot of things...

The uncaused nature resident in public companies deals with the doubling process of a particular stock.

A public company will double in value over the course of time, but it is impossible to know which particular stock will double. The doubling process is, quite literally, uncaused and unpredictable. It is truly indetermined.

Just because something appears to be random, does not mean that it is. A statistical analysis of the digits in the decimal representation of the number pi, will be no different than a pseudo random string of digits, yet pi is hardly random.

In the words of the poet...
"Given the many times I've asked some atheists to offer verifiable evidence for their uncaused events claims, I find that none has ever been given."

Not if it's uncaused. Although a public company's doubling in value over the course of time may be unpredictable, it is not uncaused.

Olavisjo's rule-> There are no random events, if you look long and hard enough for a cause, you will find one. Randomdidit is a false god.

Then I suggest you find a cause for the natural, random decay of atoms. Physicists certainly don't see any anywhere on the horizon.

[tickitytak]

The animal can not decide to do anything.
The animals behavior is strictly determined by the electrical and chemical reactions in its nervous system, so the animals response to stimuli is not a decision, it is only a reflex response.
It is the same with the human animal. You are not free to decide anything, you only respond to the world the way your electrical and chemical reactions make you respond. And the idea that you are free to do anything is just an illusion.

i agree.

I am not making this stuff up, this is doctrine right out of the atheist bible. So my question to you is "Are you going to trust your own intuition or the reasoning of people who, by their own admission, are incapable of reasoning freely"?

first of all, there is no atheist bible. atheism is strictly "the lack of belief in the existence of deities". the illusion you just described is the explanation for how free will works. we are just reponding to the stimulations from our environment, but our own consciousness acts as another stimulation because we are self-aware. this is how choice is possible. even in Determinism, everyone is still capable of reasoning freely.

You believe that atoms can spontaneously become self aware, yet there is no evidence that such a thing can occur. So why the double standard of evidence?

it's not exactly a double standard. if God does not exist, the fact that we are self-aware is evidence that it came about naturally. if God does exist, it is still possible that self-awareness came about naturally just as it is possible that it was divine intervention.

development of self-awareness through natural causes is a possibility with or without God, while divine intervention relies on the existence of God. if anything, evidence for "awareness through nature" is supported by the lack of evidence of a higher being.

[Miles]

even in Determinism, everyone is still capable of reasoning freely.

To be true, your notion (definition) of "free(ly)" must be significantly different from the one used in the free will V. determinism issue, which is essentially, "entirely without cause." Now, if by "freely" you simply mean "without external influence," then your talking about a horse of another color, which doesn't mean squat to determinism or a determinist. A determinist would merely shrug and say, "Ok," and change the subject.

[tickitytak]

even in Determinism, everyone is still capable of reasoning freely.

To be true, your notion (definition) of "free(ly)" must be significantly different from the one used in the free will V. determinism issue, which is essentially, "entirely without cause." Now, if by "freely" you simply mean "without external influence," then your talking about a horse of another color, which doesn't mean squat to determinism or a determinist. A determinist would merely shrug and say, "Ok," and change the subject.

Determinism states that everything has a determined cause and a determined effect. some interpret this to mean that since a choice was determined to happen, there was no choice to begin with. people believe that free will is a choice free of any determined outcome, as if it's free of influence or cause, but this idea is fundamentally flawed:

choice is not possible without influence; therefore, literal free will is impossible and illogical. determinism is the only explanation for how the illusion of free will (choice) is possible.

if you disagree, i would like for you to describe how one could possibly make a choice without any influence at all.

[Miles]

even in Determinism, everyone is still capable of reasoning freely.

To be true, your notion (definition) of "free(ly)" must be significantly different from the one used in the free will V. determinism issue, which is essentially, "entirely without cause." Now, if by "freely" you simply mean "without external influence," then your talking about a horse of another color, which doesn't mean squat to determinism or a determinist. A determinist would merely shrug and say, "Ok," and change the subject.

Determinism states that everything has a determined cause and a determined effect. some interpret this to mean that since a choice was determined to happen, there was no choice to begin with. people believe that free will is a choice free of any determined outcome, as if it's free of influence or cause, but this idea is fundamentally flawed:

choice is not possible without influence; therefore, literal free will is impossible and illogical. determinism is the only explanation for how the illusion of free will (choice) is possible.

if you disagree, i would like for you to describe how one could possibly make a choice without any influence at all.

Don't disagree at all.

[olavisjo]

From Page 18 Post 172:

But when assembled into an animal these can be considered as having some measure of free will by the animal's deciding to do or not do something.

The animal can not decide to do anything.
The animals behavior is strictly determined by the electrical and chemical reactions in its nervous system, so the animals response to stimuli is not a decision, it is only a reflex response.
It is the same with the human animal.

To a point. As my breathing example shows, many animals can hold their breath at will.

You are not free to decide anything, you only respond to the world the way your electrical and chemical reactions make you respond.

Yet I can still hold my breath when I choose. I agree this decision is a result of the electro-chemical reactions, but contend my decision is still a form of free will, in that these reactions ultimately resulted in my expressing my desire to do or not do something.

You are saying that your desire to do things is not entirely dependent on the physical properties of the world you live in. Then what are they dependent on? Your soul? Your spirit?
If you are going to say that you have any amount of free will, you are admitting that the universe is not governed entirely by the law of cause and effect and that you are able to alter the universe according to your own will, which transcends the natural law that governs all things other than you and other agents with free will.
This is nothing short of a belief in the supernatural.