Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Rational Atheist
Student
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 8:00 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #101

Post by The Tanager »

Miles wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:16 pmUntil "free agency" is shown to exist I don't accept it as part of any possibility, which leaves determinism as the sole operative.
How has determinism been shown to exist?

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #102

Post by Miles »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:45 pm
Miles wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:16 pm
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.
Right; however, in as much as determinism is known to be a viable cause of events in the universe, it stands as proven option---it "is shown to exist." On the other hand, free will has never been shown to. So, until free will can even be up for consideration, determinism remains the sole operative. Show that free agency exists and it might be worthy of consideration, but until then it remains a pipe dream in the shadow of determinism as the sole operative



.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #103

Post by Miles »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:58 pm
Miles wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:16 pmUntil "free agency" is shown to exist I don't accept it as part of any possibility, which leaves determinism as the sole operative.
How has determinism been shown to exist?
By default. We know that events have causes, so until someone presents an event not completely determined by previously existing causes---free, as it were---it remains the only viable explanation. Got proof or darn good evidence for an uncaused event?* Bring it on. Until then determinism remains the only show in town.



*I refuse to hear anymore arguments regarding "random" radio active decay events.


.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #104

Post by bluegreenearth »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:33 pm The reason is because it wanted to. That is neither a deterministic reason nor no reason at all.
The concept of a will wanting X over Y before it chose X over Y is incoherent. It is logically necessary for a "want" to be preceded by a decision. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the will to want anything without it first deciding what it wants. If the will wanted X over Y, it is because a decision was previously made to choose X over Y. This decision occurred for a reason or it was randomly determined. If the will had a reason to choose X over Y for it to subsequently want X over Y, then its decision and its want were both determined by that reason. If the will had no reason to choose X over Y for it to want X over Y, then its decision and its want were both randomly determined. There appears to be no third option. Therefore, to claim the reason the will choose X over Y is that it wanted X over Y doesn't account for how the will wants anything in the first place.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #105

Post by The Tanager »

Miles wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:55 pmBy default. We know that events have causes, so until someone presents an event not completely determined by previously existing causes---free, as it were---it remains the only viable explanation. Got proof or darn good evidence for an uncaused event?* Bring it on. Until then determinism remains the only show in town.

I certainly agree that radioactive decay has causes. Maybe not an efficient cause, but a cause nonetheless. Free will events also have causes. The event is caused by the will. You are just begging the question here by seemingly defining causation and determination as synonyms. Of course it would be the only show in town if you defined things that way.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #106

Post by The Tanager »

bluegreenearth wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:23 pmThe concept of a will wanting X over Y before it chose X over Y is incoherent. It is logically necessary for a "want" to be preceded by a decision. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the will to want anything without it first deciding what it wants. If the will wanted X over Y, it is because a decision was previously made to choose X over Y. This decision occurred for a reason or it was randomly determined. If the will had a reason to choose X over Y for it to subsequently want X over Y, then its decision and its want were both determined by that reason. If the will had no reason to choose X over Y for it to want X over Y, then its decision and its want were both randomly determined. There appears to be no third option. Therefore, to claim the reason the will choose X over Y is that it wanted X over Y doesn't account for how the will wants anything in the first place.

A want is a decision in this case, so how could it be logically necessary for this wanting decision be preceded by it's own self or another decision?

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #107

Post by bluegreenearth »

The Tanager wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:56 am A want is a decision in this case, so how could it be logically necessary for this wanting decision be preceded by it's own self or another decision?
No, in this case, the "want" is the outcome of a decision. The concept of a "wanting decision" is incoherent to me. Nevertheless, I'll make an attempt to further explain my logic with an example:

Consider a scenario where the "will" neither wants X over Y nor wants Y over X because it doesn't yet know that X and Y exists. Upon becoming aware that X and Y exists, the "will" must decide whether it wants X over Y or wants Y over X. So, in this case, the will decides it wants X over Y. Did it decide to want X over Y for a reason or no reason? If the "will" decided to want X over Y for a reason, then its decision was determined by that reason. If the "will" decided to want X over Y for no reason, then its decision was randomly determined. To argue that the reason the "will" decided to want X over Y upon discovering the existence of X and Y was because it wanted X over Y is incoherent and doesn't explain how the will acquired the "want" to begin with.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #108

Post by Miles »

The Tanager wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:56 am
Miles wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:55 pmBy default. We know that events have causes, so until someone presents an event not completely determined by previously existing causes---free, as it were---it remains the only viable explanation. Got proof or darn good evidence for an uncaused event?* Bring it on. Until then determinism remains the only show in town.

I certainly agree that radioactive decay has causes. Maybe not an efficient cause, but a cause nonetheless. Free will events also have causes.
Which come from where?

You are just begging the question here by seemingly defining causation and determination as synonyms.
Not at all. For one thing, I believe you've got the wrong term here. "Determination" means

"1 : firm or fixed intention She set out with determination to complete the journey.
2 : an act of deciding or the decision reached Has the jury made a determination?
3 : an act of making sure of the position, size, or nature of something a determination of location."
source:Merriam-Webster Dictionary

All of which rely on intent. Perhaps better terms would be "cause" and "determinant," which, for purposes here, I agree are synonyms.


.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #109

Post by The Tanager »

bluegreenearth wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:06 pmNo, in this case, the "want" is the outcome of a decision. The concept of a "wanting decision" is incoherent to me. Nevertheless, I'll make an attempt to further explain my logic with an example:

What is it about the definitions that logically contradict so as to make the idea incoherent? I see no reason to think the want is the outcome of a decision rather than the decision itself.
bluegreenearth wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:06 pmConsider a scenario where the "will" neither wants X over Y nor wants Y over X because it doesn't yet know that X and Y exists. Upon becoming aware that X and Y exists, the "will" must decide whether it wants X over Y or wants Y over X. So, in this case, the will decides it wants X over Y. Did it decide to want X over Y for a reason or no reason? If the "will" decided to want X over Y for a reason, then its decision was determined by that reason. If the "will" decided to want X over Y for no reason, then its decision was randomly determined. To argue that the reason the "will" decided to want X over Y upon discovering the existence of X and Y was because it wanted X over Y is incoherent and doesn't explain how the will acquired the "want" to begin with.

How is it incoherent? I don’t see how this scenario is any different than what we’ve already talked about. In the last few posts we talked about the will deciding about two things it was aware of. Here you simply add that at some point the will wasn’t aware of the two options but then became aware. At that point, we are right back to what we’ve already discussed. The reason the will chose one over the other is because it wanted to. That is neither a deterministic reason nor no reason at all.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #110

Post by The Tanager »

Miles wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:19 pm
I certainly agree that radioactive decay has causes. Maybe not an efficient cause, but a cause nonetheless. Free will events also have causes.

Which come from where?

From the same place determined will events would come from, if they occur: the will.
Miles wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:19 pmAll of which rely on intent. Perhaps better terms would be "cause" and "determinant," which, for purposes here, I agree are synonyms.

Whatever terms you want to use, it’s still begging the question. You are defining “free will” out of possibility, not demonstrating it is impossible.

Post Reply