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?

[olavisjo]

I have offered, on several occasions now, a clear example of free will. This example requires no known form of supernaturalism, only that one one breathe to a cadence of their choosing.

You have offered examples of free will, but you have not offered any explanation of what makes free will possible. Could it be goddidit? Or somethingunknowndidit?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 19 Post 190:

You have offered examples of free will, but you have not offered any explanation of what makes free will possible.

So my point is made, free will does exist, it is not an illusion, but a matter of "degree".

I make no overt claims regarding how free will comes about, but propose an answer below.

Could it be goddidit?

I'm not aware of any evidence that would even suggest this, much less show it to be the case.

Or somethingunknowndidit?

I personally consider it the result of electro-chemical reactions involved in an otherwise conscious decision making process. Evidence here is that we know these electro-chemical processes to be fact, and at least infer our consciousness is a result of such.

As I've mentioned before, I agree you are closer when you say or imply, "electro-chemical processes are not free will, and so any resultant decision is not free will". I would contend though that the results of these processes are indeed an expression of free will, in that we can make a conscious decision to do or not do something.

So, while I say I'm correct, I also say you're "correcter". I don't see it as a yes/no issue. On an electro-chemical level, you are correct, as a practical matter of the conscious mind, I'm correct.

[Cathar1950]

I suspect part of the reason you can’t see the source of novelty is because your cause effect model is limited to the cause and the effect as if there is no context.
The effect can reverberate through the context providing new circumstances each moment. Any animal that can learn accumulates as something new is added from the past that wasn’t there before. But that is true for all of matter and energy as the past is brought forward into the present make the present and future anew. Novelty is almost necessary with any change and the universe is full of change.

Where does anything come from?

Victor J. Stenger in "Quantum Gods":

“Assume the universe starts out as an empty void…It possesses all the possible symmetries we can imagine and so we can model this in terms of all the laws that follow naturally from these symmetry principles. As the universe expands and cools, some of these symmetries spontaneously (that is randomly without cause) beak and we obtain the standard model that fits all the data as of this writing.
In short, the laws of physics are natural. They are just what they should be if the universe appeared from a state of maximum indeterministic chaos. Now the theist will argue that God made that chaos. But he didn’t have. As we saw previously, chaos is natural.� P. 260

Maybe novelty is the emergent property of change.

It seems to me that what is meant by free-will is an abstraction or even metaphor for our choices which are largely conditioned and somewhat controlled by emotions. Emotions seem to be an evolutionary way of attaching importance to what we are doing.
Free-will isn’t so much of an illusion as it is a story we tell after the fact.
Granted we make choices but I see no reasons to think those choices are all contingent upon everything that has determined it and like everything else it is determined in complex ways. Even the simplest organisms make simple choices and if they learn they make more complex ones based on the past. There is no reason to think our choices are not also determined by our past and the present bring novelty but still determined by its constituents.
We all agree we make choices but why we make choices and why we make the choices we do would make no sense in a world were your choices were indeterminate and would soon be unwanted. It looks to me like those that advocate free-will as something other then the outcome of many determinates losses any metaphysical connection to the world where they make the choices. Our choices seem determined and when we learn we are being re-determined and because the past seem to accumulate everything is being constantly re-determined and therefore still determined but each moment offering novelty.

[Miles]

[quote="Victor J. Stenger in "Quantum Gods""]“Assume the universe starts out as an empty void…It possesses all the possible symmetries we can imagine and so we can model this in terms of all the laws that follow naturally from these symmetry principles. As the universe expands and cools, some of these symmetries spontaneously (that is randomly without cause) beak and we obtain the standard model that fits all the data as of this writing.
In short, the laws of physics are natural. They are just what they should be if the universe appeared from a state of maximum indeterministic chaos. Now the theist will argue that God made that chaos. But he didn’t have. As we saw previously, chaos is natural.� P. 260

[/quote]
That's one heck of a leap, inserting "without cause" into this "spontaneously breaking." Convenient to assert, but without any basis that I can see.

[Cathar1950]

[quote="Victor J. Stenger in "Quantum Gods""]“Assume the universe starts out as an empty void…It possesses all the possible symmetries we can imagine and so we can model this in terms of all the laws that follow naturally from these symmetry principles. As the universe expands and cools, some of these symmetries spontaneously (that is randomly without cause) beak and we obtain the standard model that fits all the data as of this writing.
In short, the laws of physics are natural. They are just what they should be if the universe appeared from a state of maximum indeterministic chaos. Now the theist will argue that God made that chaos. But he didn’t have. As we saw previously, chaos is natural.� P. 260

That's one heck of a leap, inserting "without cause" into this "spontaneously breaking." Convenient to assert, but without any basis that I can see.[/quote]
I can see where "without cause" is more of an emergent property being expressed in a novel way creating further novelty.
What could we possibly mean by "without cause"?


The emergent properties of water from two parts H and one part O, ignoring for a moment how oxygen and hydrogen are created and emerge with their properties, how would we know the properties of water and how it acts upon others until we see it or it happens?
These properties almost seem without cause except as emergent properties of matter and energy.

[Miles]

The emergent properties of water from two parts H and one part O, ignoring for a moment how oxygen and hydrogen are created and emerge with their properties,

Sorry, but I don't understand your use of "emergent" when talking about the properties of water.

how would we know the properties of water and how it acts upon others until we see it or it happens?

We wouldn't, but I fail to see its relevance here. Knowing or not knowing about it doesn't affect its existence.

These properties almost seem without cause except as emergent properties of matter and energy.

And this is this surprising? As matter, the properties of water appear quite reasonable.

[Cathar1950]

The emergent properties of water from two parts H and one part O, ignoring for a moment how oxygen and hydrogen are created and emerge with their properties,

Sorry, but I don't understand your use of "emergent" when talking about the properties of water.

how would we know the properties of water and how it acts upon others until we see it or it happens?

We wouldn't, but I fail to see its relevance here. Knowing or not knowing about it doesn't affect its existence.

These properties almost seem without cause except as emergent properties of matter and energy.

And this is this surprising? As matter, the properties of water appear quite reasonable.

That is the point; it is not surprising and there would not be the properties of water without oxygen and hydrogen first having their properties. Their properties created new conditions.

[tickitytak]

repost:

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.

[olavisjo]

repost:

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.

Your reasoning is correct as far as I can tell.

The implication of your reasoning is that every event is the result of a chain of events that extends all the way back to the beginning of the universe.

One problem with that is that the odds of all the matter and energy being so perfectly lined up, from the beginning, is so small that we can say it would be impossible for it to have happened.

The other problem is that there is no explanation for how a determined sequence takes on a life of its own. It is like taking a determined sequence of numbers, like the digits of the infinitely long sequence of the number pi, and finding a novel coded in the digits. It just will not happen, no novel or life can come from a fixed and determined sequence of numbers or matter and energy.

So for life to be possible there must be a way for matter and energy to break free from the natural laws that governs our universe and follow a higher law of life that allows for free will choices that are not strictly determined by the laws of physics. And we can call that the law of the spirit.

Uncaused and random events would not make life any more possible either for similar reasons. And they are logical contradictions in themselves.

So we are left with only one logical explanation for why our universe is the way it is, and that is that God made it to be what it is.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 198:

The implication of your reasoning is that every event is the result of a chain of events that extends all the way back to the beginning of the universe.

One problem with that is that the odds of all the matter and energy being so perfectly lined up, from the beginning, is so small that we can say it would be impossible for it to have happened.

The improbability of something occuring is useless when considering something that actually has occurred. This is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

The other problem is that there is no explanation for how a determined sequence takes on a life of its own. It is like taking a determined sequence of numbers, like the digits of the infinitely long sequence of the number pi, and finding a novel coded in the digits. It just will not happen, no novel or life can come from a fixed and determined sequence of numbers or matter and energy.

Notice here, the "fixed and determined" sequence of DNA is NOT fixed and determined. It changes.

So for life to be possible there must be a way for matter and energy to break free from the natural laws that governs our universe and follow a higher law of life that allows for free will choices that are not strictly determined by the laws of physics. And we can call that the law of the spirit.

You can call it what you want. It's the proving this "law of spirit" that gets difficult. This is nothing more than a god of the gaps argument.

Uncaused and random events would not make life any more possible either for similar reasons. And they are logical contradictions in themselves.

Yet most theists seem to claim God Himself is uncaused.

So we are left with only one logical explanation for why our universe is the way it is, and that is that God made it to be what it is.

More god of the gaps. The universe is observed to operate an many well known (and yes, some unknown) natural processes. There's little "logic" in saying "I don't know, so God".

When the preponderance of evidence points to natural processes, it is my contention the more logical conclusion would be that the universe is a product of these natural processes.