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.

[Kevin King]

My apologies, I hit "submit" instead of "save." I will finish tomorrow. Can you hold your fire until then, please, Miles. Thank you.

[Kevin King]

The other night, I pressed the wrong button and got interrupted. Sorry, I was going to finish the last point by saying just because influences on behavior doesn't mean free will does not exist or that it is not logically possible that it has ontology.

Quite an overstatement. The only perceived loss would be a false awareness of accountability involving morals. I fail to see why laws, philosophy, and civilization would cease to be. Care to explain?

Perhaps I cannot ever convince you of this. All you have to do is follow the chain of probable events: If there is no individual freedom of will or choice, there is no personal responsibility. No personal responsibility, there is no sense of right and wrong, no sense of right and wrong, no ability to think morally or ethically, no ability to think morally or legally, no ability to detect bad actions or actors, no ability to detect bad actions or actors, no law, no law, no justice. If there is no justice, anarchy ensues throughout society, perhaps the world, depending if it spreads, and civilization collapses.

This is an induction: One starts with a narrow premise (individual freedom of will) followed to a wider conclusion. This is one way to prove free will probably can logically! There are probably other proofs and arguments I will review later.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Bradskii]

Only to the extent the chain makes you do so.

And again, I can play an active role even on this level. I can set into motion the causal factors that would make me want to do something.

But what you want is part of the chain. To use an extreme example, you and your child are in a desert dying of thirst - do you drag yourself to where there is a treaure chest or to where there is water? Your choice is obviously determined by your situation. It doesn't matter how many times you run that scenario, you'll head for the water. Now what if your neighbour says he'll pay you to mow his lawn and your wife says she wants to go out for a drink. Kinda the same choices but not so clear cut this time. But you make your decision.

The way I see it is that the decision you make in the second example isn't as obvious a choice as the first. But whether you mow the lawn or go for a drink, there was a causal chain of events that resulted in you making that decision. And if you ran that moment when you made the decision umpteen times, then the causal chain would be exactly the same and would result in the same choice. That is, you had a reason for making it and that reason would always be the deciding factor.

The only way you could break that chain is by not making a choice and decide by spinning a coin or doing something that makes it truly arbitrary.

The non-existence of free will doesn't mean that you can't make choices. It means that you would always make the same choice in exactly the same situation. And it's quite logical to change the tense and say 'you always will make the same choice in exactly the same situation'. And as there's logically only one situation - the one that actually occurs, then logically there is no free will.

[mgb]

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.

Past thoughts (memory) also determine our actions. We make choices not only in terms of what we are thinking at the moment but in terms of all the thoughts, memories and experiences we have had during our lives. This is far more sophisticated than simply thinking and acting on the most recent thought.

[Swami]

[Replying to Rational Atheist in post #1]
The biggest mistake in Western philosophy is separating the subject and object. In reality, all is one.

To understand free-will requires that you first understand what is the self. If you limit self to a body, then there is no free-will. This is the evil of materialism.

But when you identify self as being one with the Universe, then there is an infinite number of possibilities and potentialities. This is better than freedom of the will. The self even goes beyond an individual will. You can not say that I am under a law because I am the law.

Free-will is not true liberation. True liberation is when you are able to experience everything, all possibilities and all potentialities, as Self. True liberation brings bliss.

Ashtavakra Samhita, Chapter 1, Nature of Witness Self
The Self is the witness, all pervading, complete, one, free, consciousness, inactive, unattached, without desires, peaceful, even when it revolves or wanders in the cycle of births and deaths.

Know that the form is unreal, but the formless is permanently stable. By the instruction of this fact, rebirth becomes impossible.

[Tcg]

To understand free-will requires that you first understand what is the self. If you limit self to a body, then there is no free-will. This is the evil of materialism.

Until verifiable evidence is provided that supports the idea that the self is anything more than a body, there is no reason to accept this line of reasoning. Additionally, there is nothing provided here to support the claim that materialism is evil. On the contrary, if it is true that materialism is an accurate view of reality, one would have to question the morality of promoting false hopes based on non-materialism. However, until one or the other can be established as an accurate reflection of reality, moralistic proclamations concerning either should be avoided.


Tcg

[Swami]

[Miles]

[Replying to Rational Atheist in post #1]
The biggest mistake in Western philosophy is separating the subject and object. In reality, all is one.

To understand free-will requires that you first understand what is the self.

Bull hockey. Free will is nothing more than the ability to have done differently.



.

[Tcg]

When you are able to experience what I have experienced, then we can debate.

This is a debate sub-forum. Debate is to be expected and is in fact what this section of this site is set up for. Your claims to have experienced something or other is not evidence nor does it disqualify you from the need to support your claim with evidence.


Tcg