Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

[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.

[mgb]

So you believe that choice is random? Or that all choice is uncaused? If so, how does one arrive at a choice? Even the flip of a coin has determinant factors that affect its outcome.

I don't know because nobody knows what 'random' means. It has no rigorous definition.
In this instance the choice is arrived at by way of a mathematical fact; the value of a digit.
I'm trying to demonstrate that a choice can be made that cannot be explained by physical determinism because this choice cannot be traced back to a physical process in the brain or any other physical mechanism.

[The Tanager]

Is there something that determines how the will determines what goal it wants to seek or is it randomly determined?

That’s a false dilemma. It’s either:

1. The will chooses this goal
2. The will is determined by something else to choose this goal
3. The will’s goal is randomly determined.

[bluegreenearth]

That’s a false dilemma. It’s either:

1. The will chooses this goal
2. The will is determined by something else to choose this goal
3. The will’s goal is randomly determined.

Demonstrate the existence of a will, and then describe or demonstrate how the will chooses a goal.

[Miles]

So you believe that choice is random? Or that all choice is uncaused? If so, how does one arrive at a choice? Even the flip of a coin has determinant factors that affect its outcome.

I don't know because nobody knows what 'random' means. It has no rigorous definition.

Sure it does. It just depends on the field of application it's being used in; the physical sciences, philosophy, biology, mathematics, statistics, information science, finance, politics, and even religion. See HERE.

In this instance the choice is arrived at by way of a mathematical fact; the value of a digit.

No. The choice in question is that of choosing a particular item on the list. You said

"Now take the first digit in the decimal expansion, 3
and go to your list;
[ostensibly to choose one of the items, which, in this case, was #3]
3 = Drive your car"

which is the choice I was referring to in post #63 when I said: "making a choice from that list,."

I'm trying to demonstrate that a choice can be made that cannot be explained by physical determinism because this choice cannot be traced back to a physical process in the brain or any other physical mechanism.

Then you've failed because the choice came from a brain, and all processes of the brain, including neuron activity and electrical signals, are physical entities.

"Neurons release brain chemicals, known as neurotransmitters, which generate these electrical signals in neighboring neurons. The electrical signals propagate like a wave to thousands of neurons, which leads to thought formation. "
source


.

[Purple Knight]

I'm trying to demonstrate that a choice can be made that cannot be explained by physical determinism because this choice cannot be traced back to a physical process in the brain or any other physical mechanism.

Then you've failed because the choice came from a brain, and all processes of the brain, including neuron activity and electrical signals, are physical entities.

I think this moves the goalposts, even if only a little, because physical determinism means nothing is random; everything that will occur, must occur; nobody can do anything different. Now it might be that this is true, but with our current understanding, the decay of a radioactive isotope might indeed be random, meaning that once he hooks his list up to the decay of such an isotope, and it generates something, he really could have done differently, breaking physical determinism.

Now, because we can have such randomness, I would say that "roll a die" is just fine and charitably we should consider it random for the purposes of the argument.

Once the die is cast and the divergence is set, you can't say that him doing #6 is perfectly traceable back to a state of his brain when you say the same if the die lands on #4 and he does that instead.

[Miles]

I'm trying to demonstrate that a choice can be made that cannot be explained by physical determinism because this choice cannot be traced back to a physical process in the brain or any other physical mechanism.

Then you've failed because the choice came from a brain, and all processes of the brain, including neuron activity and electrical signals, are physical entities.

I think this moves the goalposts, even if only a little, because physical determinism means nothing is random; everything that will occur, must occur; nobody can do anything different. Now it might be that this is true, but with our current understanding, the decay of a radioactive isotope might indeed be random, meaning that once he hooks his list up to the decay of such an isotope, and it generates something, he really could have done differently, breaking physical determinism.

From all I've read, our current understanding is that while we don't know how the relevant factors work to set off a decay event, it cannot be asserted they are not determinants. Unfortunately, this inability to show the "how," and the necessity of expressing such spontaneous decay in probabilistic terms, has led many to phrase the action as a (completely) random event, implying, or leaving the impression that radioactive decay is uncaused. Articles written for the lay audience, particularly those addressing QM, repeatedly do this, either unintentionally, or in ignorance of facts.

Once the die is cast and the divergence is set, you can't say that him doing #6 is perfectly traceable back to a state of his brain when you say the same if the die lands on #4 and he does that instead.

Looking back at the beginning of our discussion here you said;

"If I use his list, and I roll a die (or, if you want to get down to the nitty-grityy, if I use a random number generator 1-6 hooked up to the decay of a radioactive isotope), then I've got round your objection."

but have not gotten around the fact that you chose to roll the die rather than use some other method of determination. Simply putting the actor (you) one step back in the line causal factors does not mean you played no part in the final outcome. If you had decided to flip a coin or use a random number generator or use "eenie meenie miney mo" instead, the outcome could well have been much different, and for each method. So the fact is, your choosing a method did play a role in the final outcome.


.

[Purple Knight]

Looking back at the beginning of our discussion here you said;

"If I use his list, and I roll a die (or, if you want to get down to the nitty-grityy, if I use a random number generator 1-6 hooked up to the decay of a radioactive isotope), then I've got round your objection."

but have not gotten around the fact that you chose to roll the die rather than use some other method of determination. Simply putting the actor (you) one step back in the line causal factors does not mean you played no part in the final outcome. If you had decided to flip a coin or use a random number generator or use "eenie meenie miney mo" instead, the outcome could well have been much different, and for each method. So the fact is, your choosing a method did play a role in the final outcome.


.

Played a role, but not determined the outcome. So, there is an outcome that was not determined by my choice. My choice goes in, and a 1 may come out, or a 4 may come out, or a 6 may come out, and I do something different.

From all I've read, our current understanding is that while we don't know how the relevant factors work to set off a decay event, it cannot be asserted they are not determinants. Unfortunately, this inability to show the "how," and the necessity of expressing such spontaneous decay in probabilistic terms, has led many to phrase the action as a (completely) random event, implying, or leaving the impression that radioactive decay is uncaused. Articles written for the lay audience, particularly those addressing QM, repeatedly do this, either unintentionally, or in ignorance of facts.

If there's nothing random, then physical determinism is true, and nobody can/could ever have done differently. Whether or not this constitutes a lack of free will depends upon how we define free will.

[Miles]

Looking back at the beginning of our discussion here you said;

"If I use his list, and I roll a die (or, if you want to get down to the nitty-grityy, if I use a random number generator 1-6 hooked up to the decay of a radioactive isotope), then I've got round your objection."

but have not gotten around the fact that you chose to roll the die rather than use some other method of determination. Simply putting the actor (you) one step back in the line causal factors does not mean you played no part in the final outcome. If you had decided to flip a coin or use a random number generator or use "eenie meenie miney mo" instead, the outcome could well have been much different, and for each method. So the fact is, your choosing a method did play a role in the final outcome.


.

Played a role, but not determined the outcome. So, there is an outcome that was not determined by my choice. My choice goes in, and a 1 may come out, or a 4 may come out, or a 6 may come out, and I do something different.

From all I've read, our current understanding is that while we don't know how the relevant factors work to set off a decay event, it cannot be asserted they are not determinants. Unfortunately, this inability to show the "how," and the necessity of expressing such spontaneous decay in probabilistic terms, has led many to phrase the action as a (completely) random event, implying, or leaving the impression that radioactive decay is uncaused. Articles written for the lay audience, particularly those addressing QM, repeatedly do this, either unintentionally, or in ignorance of facts.

If there's nothing random, then physical determinism is true, and nobody can/could ever have done differently. Whether or not this constitutes a lack of free will depends upon how we define free will.

Have a good day.


.

[mgb]

Then you've failed because the choice came from a brain, and all processes of the brain, including neuron activity and electrical signals, are physical entities.

These are not the choices I am talking about. These are items on a list. The choice, in this case, involves choosing between one thing and another. After the list is made an item still needs to be chosen. That choice is not a physical process. It is a digit. This means that the series of physical actions that follows is determined by a digit, not a physical process. And this means that the flow of physical events is influenced by a digit, not a physical process. All that is required is one factor that is not physical but has an effect on the physical.

Concerning randomness - what human beings can't predict is a poor definition*. In this thread randomness is being equated with non determinism but you can also define randomness in the sense that each possible outcome has an equal chance of occurring and that does not necessarily exclude determinism. The link you posted does not give a rigorous definition of randomness. What does the word 'random' mean?

*I can't predict who the next person I meet will be. Does that mean it is random?

[The Tanager]

That’s a false dilemma. It’s either:

1. The will chooses this goal
2. The will is determined by something else to choose this goal
3. The will’s goal is randomly determined.

Demonstrate the existence of a will, and then describe or demonstrate how the will chooses a goal.

Both of our views assume the existence of a will, otherwise we could perform no action. The “will” is whatever process results in a decision being made and an action being attempted. The question is whether that will, or our decision, is free, determined, or random. Those are the three logically possible options. Your claim rules out one of the three logically possible options and sets up a dilemma between 2 and 3. You bear the burden for doing so, in order to support your claim.