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 #152

Post by Seek »

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.
Every event has a cause.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #153

Post by The Tanager »

Seek wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:30 amEvery event has a cause.
I agree. Our (free) wills are the cause of many events.

User avatar
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 #154

Post by David the apologist »

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.
Actually, that's precisely the one I object to.

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

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #155

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

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.
But 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.

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.

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 #156

Post by Miles »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:49 pm
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.
But 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.

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.
So, 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

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #157

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Miles wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:51 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:49 pm
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.
But 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.

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.
So, 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?



.
Its 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.

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 #158

Post by Miles »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 10:27 am
Miles wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:51 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:49 pm
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.
But 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.

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.
So, 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?



.
Its 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.
Obviously 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.

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. 8-)


.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #159

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Miles wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 5:06 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 10:27 am
Miles wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:51 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:49 pm
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.
But 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.

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.
So, 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?



.
Its 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.
Obviously 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.

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. 8-)


.
Let me address the points you raise which seem to be:

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.

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 #160

Post by Miles »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:14 am
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 5:06 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 10:27 am
Miles wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:51 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:49 pm
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.
But 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.

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.
So, 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?



.
Its 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.
Obviously 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.

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. 8-)


.
Let me address the points you raise which seem to be:

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?
Okay, you evidently don't know what explaining 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 again, you evidently don't know what analyzing something consists of. 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.
And you simply refuse a request. Fair enough.

You simply cannot and will not engage in debate here. Understood.

Have a nice day.


.

Post Reply