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
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #152Every event has a cause.The Tanager wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:59 pm [Replying to Seek in post #150]
There is equally a 'reason' physical factors cause us to do X. I think you and others are equivocating on reason and cause, treating 'reason' differently within the free will explanation and the determinism explanation.
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5003
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 150 times
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #153I agree. Our (free) wills are the cause of many events.
- 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 #154Actually, that's precisely the one I object to.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.
Thoughts influence our choices, but do not determine them. The will is indifferent to most of the things we think about - largely due to the fact that, on some level, we know that nothing we can actually comprehend will ever truly satisfy us.
"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
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #155But 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.
- 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 #156So, 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.
.
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #157Its 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.
.
- 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 #158Obviously 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.
.
Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible
Post #159Let 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?
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.
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.
- 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 #160Okay, 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.
.