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.

Seek
Student
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 30, 2021 5:00 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #171

Post by Seek »

The reason why I disbelieve free will is because our behaviors suggest we hold clear and consistent personalities. If there were free will, I suppose it would've been hard if not impossible to give labels to describe people. "Big talker", "Always pessimist", "Always sad", "Interested in this" etc. Because we could potentially radically change our way of living from one day to the next.

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 #172

Post by Miles »

Seek wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 11:40 am The reason why I disbelieve free will is because our behaviors suggest we hold clear and consistent personalities. If there were free will, I suppose it would've been hard if not impossible to give labels to describe people. "Big talker", "Always pessimist", "Always sad", "Interested in this" etc. Because we could potentially radically change our way of living from one day to the next.
Ahh, I suspect the concept of free will has eluded you a bit. Here, from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe. Arguments for free will have been based on the subjective experience of freedom, on sentiments of guilt, on revealed religion, and on the common assumption of individual moral responsibility that underlies the concepts of law, reward, punishment, and incentive. In theology, the existence of free will must be reconciled with God’s omniscience and benevolence and with divine grace, which allegedly is necessary for any meritorious act. A prominent feature of existentialism is the concept of a radical, perpetual, and frequently agonizing freedom of choice. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–80), for example, spoke of the individual 'condemned to be free.'”

In short, free will is commonly considered to be the ability to have done differently. Countering free will is determinism:

"The existence of free will is denied by some proponents of determinism, or the thesis that every event in the universe is causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did. Philosophers and scientists who believe that determinism in this sense is incompatible with free will are known as “hard” determinists."
source

.

Seek
Student
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 30, 2021 5:00 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #173

Post by Seek »

Miles wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:02 am
Seek wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 11:40 am The reason why I disbelieve free will is because our behaviors suggest we hold clear and consistent personalities. If there were free will, I suppose it would've been hard if not impossible to give labels to describe people. "Big talker", "Always pessimist", "Always sad", "Interested in this" etc. Because we could potentially radically change our way of living from one day to the next.
Ahh, I suspect the concept of free will has eluded you a bit. Here, from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe. Arguments for free will have been based on the subjective experience of freedom, on sentiments of guilt, on revealed religion, and on the common assumption of individual moral responsibility that underlies the concepts of law, reward, punishment, and incentive. In theology, the existence of free will must be reconciled with God’s omniscience and benevolence and with divine grace, which allegedly is necessary for any meritorious act. A prominent feature of existentialism is the concept of a radical, perpetual, and frequently agonizing freedom of choice. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–80), for example, spoke of the individual 'condemned to be free.'”

In short, free will is commonly considered to be the ability to have done differently. Countering free will is determinism:

"The existence of free will is denied by some proponents of determinism, or the thesis that every event in the universe is causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did. Philosophers and scientists who believe that determinism in this sense is incompatible with free will are known as “hard” determinists."
source

.
Actually, it hasn't eluded me at all; what I'm talking about is the purported ability to have done otherwise in the past, which is what the quotes you cited say. I don't believe in this ability since humans tend to have clear personalities.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #174

Post by William »

[Replying to Seek in post #173]
Actually, it hasn't eluded me at all; what I'm talking about is the purported ability to have done otherwise in the past, which is what the quotes you cited say. I don't believe in this ability since humans tend to have clear personalities.
Personalities too are something which happen because of the circumstance - these develop with and without our conscious consent - and are subject to change through an act of willingness [will] but that in itself does not signify that the will involved is 'free' - only that it is free within the bounds set by the environment the personality develops within.

What I think about free will goes along the lines that we had:


Free Will - but prior to willingly choosing to be incarcerated in this particular Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation.

Once inside - then relative free will - illusionary but aligned with the reason we freely chose to be here...

mac_
Student
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2022 1:38 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #175

Post by mac_ »

Rational Atheist wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:18 pm 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.

So you weren't free to come to your conclusion. How can you be sure it's true then?
Non-religious theist.

User avatar
Ionian_Tradition
Sage
Posts: 739
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:46 pm
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #176

Post by Ionian_Tradition »

Rational Atheist wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:18 pm 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.
I’m not yet certain that you’ve adequately defended the logical necessity of premise 1. Even if we grant that the contents of our thoughts are not consciously selected, it’s by no means clear that conscious agents are therefore (logically) incapable of making any (uncaused/free) conscious choices. Merely labeling “conscious choice” as “thought” is not enough to show that this unique species of mental activity is itself caused. In fact, the claim that conscious selection is a “thought” in the same respect that the concept “chocolate” is a thought seems to me to be a gross conflation. Yes, both phenomena occur within the mind, but they are by no means qualitatively identical.
If, as I think is evident, the contents of conceptual thoughts are qualitatively distinct from the unique form of mental exertion we call “conscious selection”, then premise 1 will need to be more clearly defined in order to retain its logical force.

What logical impediment, for example, precludes conscious agents from exerting their awareness in such a way so as to consciously select “chocolate” over “vanilla” (in an objectively uncaused fashion)? Why should we believe that “thought” causally precedes the act of conscious selection itself? Certainly, conceptual thoughts such as “chocolate” and “vanilla” set the stage, as it were, for a conscious decision between the two, but this only shows that conceptual thoughts constrain free choices to the set of known, or perceived, options. This doesn’t therefore imply that conscious agents require conceptual thoughts to actually begin the mental action of selecting between known alternatives.

Barring a clear logical constraint which prevents (in all possible worlds) the act of conscious selection from being uncaused in itself, we simply cannot say (with any degree of confidence) that choices cannot be "free" (i.e. freely made within the confines of a set of perceived options).

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 #177

Post by Miles »

Seek wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:22 am
Miles wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:02 am
Seek wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 11:40 am The reason why I disbelieve free will is because our behaviors suggest we hold clear and consistent personalities. If there were free will, I suppose it would've been hard if not impossible to give labels to describe people. "Big talker", "Always pessimist", "Always sad", "Interested in this" etc. Because we could potentially radically change our way of living from one day to the next.
Ahh, I suspect the concept of free will has eluded you a bit. Here, from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe. Arguments for free will have been based on the subjective experience of freedom, on sentiments of guilt, on revealed religion, and on the common assumption of individual moral responsibility that underlies the concepts of law, reward, punishment, and incentive. In theology, the existence of free will must be reconciled with God’s omniscience and benevolence and with divine grace, which allegedly is necessary for any meritorious act. A prominent feature of existentialism is the concept of a radical, perpetual, and frequently agonizing freedom of choice. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–80), for example, spoke of the individual 'condemned to be free.'”

In short, free will is commonly considered to be the ability to have done differently. Countering free will is determinism:

"The existence of free will is denied by some proponents of determinism, or the thesis that every event in the universe is causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did. Philosophers and scientists who believe that determinism in this sense is incompatible with free will are known as “hard” determinists."
source

.
Actually, it hasn't eluded me at all; what I'm talking about is the purported ability to have done otherwise in the past, which is what the quotes you cited say. I don't believe in this ability since humans tend to have clear personalities.
Curious. Assuming you believe in free will, why would tending to having "clear personalities," whatever that is, preclude one from having done otherwise?

.

Seek
Student
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 30, 2021 5:00 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #178

Post by Seek »

Miles wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 12:12 am
Seek wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:22 am
Miles wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:02 am
Seek wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 11:40 am The reason why I disbelieve free will is because our behaviors suggest we hold clear and consistent personalities. If there were free will, I suppose it would've been hard if not impossible to give labels to describe people. "Big talker", "Always pessimist", "Always sad", "Interested in this" etc. Because we could potentially radically change our way of living from one day to the next.
Ahh, I suspect the concept of free will has eluded you a bit. Here, from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe. Arguments for free will have been based on the subjective experience of freedom, on sentiments of guilt, on revealed religion, and on the common assumption of individual moral responsibility that underlies the concepts of law, reward, punishment, and incentive. In theology, the existence of free will must be reconciled with God’s omniscience and benevolence and with divine grace, which allegedly is necessary for any meritorious act. A prominent feature of existentialism is the concept of a radical, perpetual, and frequently agonizing freedom of choice. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–80), for example, spoke of the individual 'condemned to be free.'”

In short, free will is commonly considered to be the ability to have done differently. Countering free will is determinism:

"The existence of free will is denied by some proponents of determinism, or the thesis that every event in the universe is causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did. Philosophers and scientists who believe that determinism in this sense is incompatible with free will are known as “hard” determinists."
source

.
Actually, it hasn't eluded me at all; what I'm talking about is the purported ability to have done otherwise in the past, which is what the quotes you cited say. I don't believe in this ability since humans tend to have clear personalities.
Curious. Assuming you believe in free will, why would tending to having "clear personalities," whatever that is, preclude one from having done otherwise?

.
You're right. I'm just thinking that the world would have been more chaotic if we freely chose our actions.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #179

Post by The Barbarian »

Suppose one is considering some action, but is unsure about what to do.

And one then looks at as much of the evidence as one can to see which alternative is most likely to produce a desired outcome.

And when all the evidence is in, and analyzed, it clearly indicates one alternative that is not particularly desired by the person doing the analysis.

But he does it.

So will we say that determinism (the preponderance of evidence) was the cause of his behavior?
Or is it his decision to use rational criteria to see what should be done?
Or is it that environmental/developmental factors led him to seek rational criteria?
Or (approaching infinite regress)

A hint:
Reason is, and ought to be, only the slave of the passions.
David Hume

Seek
Student
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 30, 2021 5:00 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #180

Post by Seek »

The Barbarian wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 10:27 am Suppose one is considering some action, but is unsure about what to do.

And one then looks at as much of the evidence as one can to see which alternative is most likely to produce a desired outcome.

And when all the evidence is in, and analyzed, it clearly indicates one alternative that is not particularly desired by the person doing the analysis.

But he does it.

So will we say that determinism (the preponderance of evidence) was the cause of his behavior?
Or is it his decision to use rational criteria to see what should be done?
Or is it that environmental/developmental factors led him to seek rational criteria?
Or (approaching infinite regress)

A hint:
Reason is, and ought to be, only the slave of the passions.
David Hume
I don't think our choices are free. In that regard, I'd define free will as "The ability to reflect over one's behavior and adjust it accordingly".

Post Reply