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.
Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Student
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 8:00 pm
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 31 times
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #161I agree...I think..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.
At work, my job is so boring that I consciously choose what I will think of to get me through the day while working (true story).Rational Atheist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:18 pm 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.
So your implication is proven wrong based on my every day experience at work.
Next..
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #162I think my replies to you so far show a willingness to engage.Miles wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 3:22 pmOkay, you evidently don't know what explaining something consists of. Fair enough.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:14 amLet me address the points you raise which seem to be:Miles wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 5:06 pmObviously this is a preemptive offensive designed to quash any expectation to explain free will's existence, but free will is indeed "amenable to analysis," starting with the challenge to demonstrate its existence. Simply asserting it's a "more fundamental thing" means bupkis as is claiming that it's not amenable to analysis.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 10:27 amIts name is - I posit - "Free will" that's its name. It is able to direct matter, move and influence the material realm, it is both thought and decision, it is not amenable to analysis, reductionism cannot be used. It is not causal, it is not deterministic, it is not algorithmic.Miles wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:51 pmSo, just what is this "more fundamental thing" you have in mind? Does it have a name? If not, at the very least it must have specific characteristics you can point to. Whatcha got?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:49 pmBut one can think about choosing what to think next, for example I can think about mathematics then choose to think more specifically about category theory.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.
So here, thinking about category theory was preceded by a choice, we could repost your list as follows:
0. Our choices determine our thoughts.
1. Our thoughts determine our choices.
2. Our choices determine our thoughts..
3. Our thoughts determine our choices.
One way to escape from the obvious infinite regress is to posit that thinking and choosing are not distinct things but just aspects of a more fundamental thing, what we do, what our will does is not an algorithm, not deterministic, do this then that, then do this then do that, but a more mysterious non-causal thing altogether in which what seem like two different things are not, just aspects of a deeper activity.
.
You make the claim that free will is a "more fundamental thing" so you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it is: that, in essence, free will exists.
I honestly don't believe you can do it and will likely beg out of my challenge or simply refuse to reply, but that's just my opinion.
.
1. Explain
You wrote "explain free will's existence" and I ask what would such an explanation look like? what is an explanation? In science an explanation (aka "theory") is always reductionist, that is how we understand the term "explanation" as an exercise in reductionism. Can you prove that all we observer can be reduced? can be described in terms of lesser things? I don't think you can, if something cannot be reduced, cannot be "explained" in that way does that mean it is not real?
And again, you evidently don't know what analyzing something consists of. Fair enough.2. Analysis
You wrote "is indeed amenable to analysis" which again is a belief, likely based on a belief that everything can be described using reductionism. But infinite reductionism, is infinite regress which - IMHO - is not actually an explanation at all, there is and must always be, unexplained things remaining.
And you simply refuse a request. Fair enough.3. Demonstrate free will exists
I do not have to, I possess it and know that I possess it, cogito, ergo sum as we say. By demonstrate though I think you mean "get me to say it has been demonstrated" and I don't see how that means anything, it is self-evident and self-evident things do not require demonstrating.
You simply cannot and will not engage in debate here. Understood.
Have a nice day.
.
Explanations are closely related to analyses, they each involve reductionism, representing some thing as being composed of or combined from other concepts.
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #164So how was the first reason established? it can't be by a preceding reason so must have been the result of a choice.
- David the apologist
- Scholar
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:33 pm
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #165This is not a road you want to go down if you're a skeptic.
"The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed to say it, because it is most shameful.
And the Son of God died; I believe it, because it is beyond belief.
And He was buried, and rose again; it is certain, because it is impossible."
-Tertullian
And the Son of God died; I believe it, because it is beyond belief.
And He was buried, and rose again; it is certain, because it is impossible."
-Tertullian
- 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 #166Why not? Show me a reason that IS freely chosen, i. e., without cause, and I'll show you an utterly random event that had just as much chance of not being as being.David the apologist wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:03 pmThis is not a road you want to go down if you're a skeptic.
,
- David the apologist
- Scholar
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:33 pm
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #167You do realize how close he's skating to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, right? And that THE PSR basically entails the existence of God, right?Miles wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:54 amWhy not? Show me a reason that IS freely chosen, i. e., without cause, and I'll show you an utterly random event that had just as much chance of not being as being.David the apologist wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:03 pmThis is not a road you want to go down if you're a skeptic.
,
"The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed to say it, because it is most shameful.
And the Son of God died; I believe it, because it is beyond belief.
And He was buried, and rose again; it is certain, because it is impossible."
-Tertullian
And the Son of God died; I believe it, because it is beyond belief.
And He was buried, and rose again; it is certain, because it is impossible."
-Tertullian
- 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 #168No it doesn't. Some have argued for the existence of god using the PSR, such as Leibniz, but in no way does the PSR "basically entail the existence of Vishnu." That is the God you're speaking of, right?David the apologist wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:07 pmYou do realize how close he's skating to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, right? And that THE PSR basically entails the existence of God, right?Miles wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:54 amWhy not? Show me a reason that IS freely chosen, i. e., without cause, and I'll show you an utterly random event that had just as much chance of not being as being.David the apologist wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:03 pmThis is not a road you want to go down if you're a skeptic.
,
.
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #169How do you determine if an event is "random"? Would you argue that the presence of the universe is due to a random event?Miles wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:54 amWhy not? Show me a reason that IS freely chosen, i. e., without cause, and I'll show you an utterly random event that had just as much chance of not being as being.David the apologist wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:03 pmThis is not a road you want to go down if you're a skeptic.
,
- 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 #170A random event as spoken of here has utterly no cause whatsoever. As for determining such an event one would have to rule out all possible causes. Could you do this? I certainly couldn't, so fail to see any reason to assert such an event exists. (Some physicists claim that utter randomness does exist at the quantum level while other physicists deny such a thing.)Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:53 pmHow do you determine if an event is "random"?Miles wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:54 amWhy not? Show me a reason that IS freely chosen, i. e., without cause, and I'll show you an utterly random event that had just as much chance of not being as being.David the apologist wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:03 pmThis is not a road you want to go down if you're a skeptic.
,
Nope.Would you argue that the presence of the universe is due to a random event?
.