No Free Will? Is this a viable philosophy?

[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?

[Wootah]

Whilst of course I agree with you ... we should also add the 'fact' that of all the matter in the universe 99.999999etc% is inanimate and to claim that the .000001% is not seems presumptive at least.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]
Hardcore solipsism is impossible to verify one way or another even in principle. The same cannot be said for hardcore determinism, the debate about freewill can potentially be resolve with enough understanding of our minds. That alone takes freewill discussion a step above solipsism.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]
Hardcore solipsism is impossible to verify one way or another even in principle. The same cannot be said for hardcore determinism, the debate about freewill can potentially be resolve with enough understanding of our minds. That alone takes freewill discussion a step above solipsism.

"the debate about freewill can potentially be resolve with enough understanding of our minds"

How can you say this until it's actually been resolved?

Sounds like an optimistic wishful thinking on your part.

I think the argument I've given in the OP is already pretty strong that the world cannot be fully predetermined. And if it's not fully predetermined, then there must necessarily be events within the universe that are not fully deterministic.

This already opens the door for non-deterministic events to occur.

There can be no question that our macro physical universe is indeed largely deterministic. In fact, if it wasn't life wouldn't even be possible at all. Our universe clearly adheres to a principle of cause and effect to a very large degree. So that much is a given.

However, is every "cause" determined? That is really the question. And the answer appears to be no, not every cause can be shown to have been determined. In fact, quantum mechanics demands that this must be the case.

Therefore we do not live in a fully deterministic reality. Is our reality partially deterministic? Sure, as I say, that's a given. Life could not even exist at all if there wasn't a great deal of organized cause and effect.

But it doesn't follow from this that everything must therefore be determined. And so a philosophy of pure determinism doesn't appear to have much support. There are clearly problems associated with pure determinism, as I have pointed out in the OP.

[Miles]

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.

And one only of interest to freshman in an introductory metaphysics class. While it does have a couple of interesting aspects, they've been so hashed over as to be rendered booooring!---It's well regarded as being baseless in both fact and theory. The only "interesting" thing to come out of it is Descartes' well worn: "Cogito Ergo Sum," a phrase only useful for impressing one's beer buddies. So, there's very good reason "Most people dismiss solipsism as simply being unworthy of consideration." And a rational position? Only in the most sophomoric sense.

[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.

And one only of interest to freshman in an introductory metaphysics class. While it does have a couple of interesting aspects, they've been so hashed over as to be rendered booooring!---It's well regarded as being baseless in both fact and theory. The only "interesting" thing to come out of it is Descartes' well worn: "Cogito Ergo Sum," a phrase only useful for impressing one's beer buddies. So, there's very good reason "Most people dismiss solipsism as simply being unworthy of consideration." And a rational position? Only in the most sophomoric sense.

Exactly my point. And the same is true of your claim that Free Will does not exist.

It's boring, and has no foundation in anything meaningful.

Clearly if every action of the universe is determined solely by determinism, then every character in history was also determined precisely as they were, including ever jot and tittle of everything they ever said and did.

Nary one jot nor one tittle could have not been determined. Because if so much as a single jot or tittle escaped determinism then that would be the straw that broke the camel's back of determinism. For from whence could undetermined jots or tittles arise?

So if we accept your claim that there can be no free will and that everything has been determined since the dawn of time, then we must also accept that all of Christianity, (and every other mythology throughout all of history) was predetermined by a deterministic universe. Not only all the mythological tales including things like Alice in Wonderland and The Lord of the Rings, but also ever actual historical action must have necessarily all been predetermined at least as far back as the Big Bang. Possibly even further back since we can't even be sure that the Big Bang was an undetermined event.

If you don't see the problem with this then I can't imagine where you would see a problem with anything.

Your theory actually requires a far more mystical belief than a purely secular free will.

If you are against religious ideas, (and that's what you seemed to be implying in your other thread), then you should be totally embracing a concept of secular free will to be sure.

Without it, the theists have a far stronger position.

In fact, there are theists on this very forum who actually claim that everything has been predetermined including your "salvation" (or lack thereof). Therefore, for them, you are just confirming what they already believe to be true.

They would love nothing more than for you to be right. That's precisely what they hope to be the case.

So you are playing right up their alley.

[Miles]

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.

And one only of interest to freshman in an introductory metaphysics class. While it does have a couple of interesting aspects, they've been so hashed over as to be rendered booooring!---It's well regarded as being baseless in both fact and theory. The only "interesting" thing to come out of it is Descartes' well worn: "Cogito Ergo Sum," a phrase only useful for impressing one's beer buddies. So, there's very good reason "Most people dismiss solipsism as simply being unworthy of consideration." And a rational position? Only in the most sophomoric sense.

Exactly my point. And the same is true of your claim that Free Will does not exist.

It's boring, and has no foundation in anything meaningful.

Yet here you are again, going on and on about it.

I'll take it as just another attempt to convince yourself that free will HAS to exist. IT JUST H A S TO.

[Divine Insight]

You aren't even considering my position in any academic way.

I personally couldn't care less whether free will exists or not.

I'm merely pointing out that the consequence of it not existing are far more bizarre than the consequence of it existing.

What the actual truth might be, is no skin off my nose.

But as an academic I would take the more rational approach.

It's simply more reasonable to conclude that free will necessarily exists. There are many secular reasons that can explain free will. Not only in humans, but in animals that also have fairly sophisticated and complex brains.

Ever hear of Chaos Theory? Apply this to a human thought process and see where it leads.

In fact, before you even attempt to do that you first need to have at least some idea of just how many synapses are involved in a single thought. I'll give you a hint and tell you that a single neuron typically has roughly somewhere between 5000 and 200,000 synapse connections to other neurons. There are roughly 200 billion neurons in a human brain. And the old belief that we only use about 10% of our brain has long since been overthrown.

So figure out how many synapses are active during a single human thought (that alone would be a formidable number) and then realize that all of those are basically taking place at the quantum level where quantum effects are the norm. Then apply Chaos Theory to figure out how likely it is that a single thought process could be precisely determined.

Have fun!

When you've finished your calculations and have an animated graphic display of precisely how a human mind thinks we can talk.

I'm willing to lay my money down on Chaos Theory exposing that pure deterministic thinking isn't even possible at all.

We are more than likely to make a choice that does not conform to our original reasoning than we are to actually make a rational logical thought. Especially in terms of any logic perfectionism.

Therefore I hold to you that it's not even possible for a human to think in a purely deterministic way. Precisely the opposite of what you suggest is more than likely the truth. We cannot even make a purely deterministic thought. We are stuck with having to live with free will whether we like it or not.

Perhaps you are the one who finds this result undesirable?

I DON'T WANT TO HAVE FREE WILL! MAKE IT GO AWAY!

The same thing you insinuate of others of could be turned right back on you just as easily.

[Bust Nak]

How can you say this until it's actually been resolved?

I don't really know how to answer that, perhaps you can help by explaining why we can't say it can potentially be resolved until it has been resolved? We figure out how the brain works, see if it is equivalent to a deterministic machine or not and resolve the debate once and for all.

I think the argument I've given in the OP is already pretty strong that the world cannot be fully predetermined. And if it's not fully predetermined, then there must necessarily be events within the universe that are not fully deterministic.

To be frank, I see it as appeal to consequences, that boils down to "It would be bad if the world is fully predetermined, therefore it isn't fully predetermined." So what if everything that any human has ever done is predetermined from the dawn of time?

However, is every "cause" determined? That is really the question. And the answer appears to be no, not every cause can be shown to have been determined. In fact, quantum mechanics demands that this must be the case.

Right, but there is still a question of if uncertainty in the quantum scale, translate to uncertainty in the macro scale. But that is yet another way to resolve the philosophical debate.

But it doesn't follow from this that everything must therefore be determined. And so a philosophy of pure determinism doesn't appear to have much support. There are clearly problems associated with pure determinism, as I have pointed out in the OP.

I said determinism makes more sense than solipsism because it can at least be resolved; Seems like you are going on further step then me, and is saying it does not make more sense because it has been resolved against its favor.

[Paprika]

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.

This is a little off-topic, but your post has reminded me to go read Plantinga's God and Other Minds; I hear that he argues that the question of the existence of God is philosophically like the existence of other minds.

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

What do you mean by 'make sense' or 'make more sense'?