Is free will an illusion?

[olavisjo]

I find that under a naturalistic philosophy it is impossible for free will to exist, for the simple reason that when we make decisions about things we are performing electrical and chemical reactions in our brains, very much like our computers process data under the control of natural laws, so the outcome of any such process must be strictly determined by past events.
A theist can say that free will is a daily miracle given to us by God, but how can an atheist explain the concept?

[McCulloch]

One will not have any faith in themselves. They cannot be proud of themselves or others, nor disappointed. Without free will, an individual is not responsible for his actions. Criminals cannot justly be punished, successful men credited for good decisions.

Are you in favour of sentences that are in relation to the 'severity' of the crime? If there is no free will, then the person simply the accidental cause of the crime. As such, a man who is convicted of petty theft should go to jail for life, to remove him from society. If the man steals bread to feed his family, need he go to jail for life? Sure, he was criminal, but if he didn't have free will, circumstances cannot be factored in to his sentence. It is a straight up guilty or not guilty; life or no sentence. Punitive punishment has no point. Rehabilitation is impossible. The only point of jail is segregation.
If there is no free will, the actor is not the primary cause of an action. Any 'good behaviour' does not find its principle in the actor, therefore the actor should not be encouraged.

If the action did not find its principle in the criminal (because, lacking free will, he did not choose the action, and so acts based entirely on other forces, such as his genome), he cannot justly be punitively punished. That is the point of jail, according to some, but most people see it as necessary. "Make him pay for his crimes, " etc.
You are both right in regards to rehabilitation, however. Retracted.

Human pride and humility are both illusions if free-will is an illusion.

I see no point in punitive punishment, do you? No one pays for his crimes in jail. The justice system should be about setting expectations, keeping order, providing restitution, rehabilitation and protection. These goals will never be met perfectly or ideally, but we must strive for them. What good does it do to know that the criminal suffers for his or her crime?

[Cathar1950]

I get the impression that free-will is this little person making all kinds of choices like a ghost.
It seems to me when we even ask why someone did something (assuming motive has any value) we are assuming cause. We develop coping mechanisms, adaption of experiences all which are complex minds use to respond and learn.
Each experience is data in new experiences. I don't think we make choices as much as we respond. Sometimes we respond creatively which provides further data or experience. As in some visions of Chaos theory little things can add up down the road into larger more complex phenomena.

I just don't see where free-will is even a useful concept.

[cnorman18]

I would seriously expect anyone who truly does not believe that free will exists to resign from this forum immediately as a matter of intellectual honesty.

If you have no free will, then you do not reason. Your thoughts are not thoughts; they are mere reactions to stimuli, and what you subjectively sense to be your "judgment" and "rational train of thought" are mere mechanical sequences of inevitable cause and effect.

Please explain to me how there can be any relationship whatever to a meaningful concept of "truth" if your perception of what is true and false is nothing but a mechanical and involuntary reaction.

Is there really a significant relationship between "2 + 2" and "4"? How do you know? You are not thinking; your judgment and power to reason and decide does not exist. You have no power of independent rational thought. You only react. You do not even have a provable right to say that you understand the question. You are only reacting to sounds and symbols and have no control whatever over those reactions.

If you deny the existence of free will, you are confessing that your thoughts and conclusions have no valiidity. Your mind does not exist; you have only involuntary reactions to stimuli, and you have no reason to believe that you think at all.

When you claim that you have thought about it and concluded that there is no such thing as free will, you have already contradicted yourself and proven that you do not actually believe what you say.

How can you "conclude" anything? How can you "think"? You have no power to choose to do either.

Therefore: continuing to pretend to rationally explain ideas and post them here as if they actually existed, and as if others had a choice about deciding whether to think them true or false, is inarguably either rank hypocrisy or unconsciously ironic foolishness.

Remember: if you try to demonstrate otherwise, your "ideas" do not exist. They are illusions. You did not "conceive" of them; they were imposed on your "mind" by mere circumstance, and you have no right to claim that you "know" or even "think" them to be "true."

You have shot yourself in the head. What are you going to think with? How can you argue anything at all when you have denied that you possess the power of independent thought?

[Cathar1950]

Pretty funny stuff, you sure went off on a rant including insults.
I was surprised by the entire false dichotomy you create with your jumps and oversimplifications.

I would seriously expect anyone who truly does not believe that free will exists to resign from this forum immediately as a matter of intellectual honesty.

Can you believe something you don’t believe or not believe something you believe?
I didn’t see where you show that I was of intellectually dishonest. Lets look at your convoluted thinking.

If you have no free will, then you do not reason. Your thoughts are not thoughts; they are mere reactions to stimuli, and what you subjectively sense to be your "judgment" and "rational train of thought" are mere mechanical sequences of inevitable cause and effect.

How does it follow that if I don’t have free-will then I can’t reason?
What do you think thought is dependent upon?
What are “mere reactions� when we are looking at complex responses that include meaning? What has not been part of our evolution and development is usually learned and used to respond to human needs. You seem to think the needs are all outside of you as you randomly make choices not related to experience, knowledge, learning and sometimes following reasoning processes.
It is you that disconnects them fro the world you live in and the world around you to some illusion you are making meaningless choices for not reason or explanation.
If I am intellectually dishonest then you might be also intellectually dense or believe in magic. You are claiming something that has not reasons, explanation or causes or you are admitting responses are conditioned.

Please explain to me how there can be any relationship whatever to a meaningful concept of "truth" if your perception of what is true and false is nothing but a mechanical and involuntary reaction.

I am not making them “mechanical and involuntary reaction�(s), they are conditioned responses that can also be novel while hey are conditioned by our language, meanings and culture. I see us as beautiful living organisms seeking that which we developed to find satisfaction with our complex reasoning responses where you want some random boogieman calling shots for no apparent reasons.
.

Is there really a significant relationship between "2 + 2" and "4"? How do you know? You are not thinking; your judgment and power to reason and decide does not exist. You have no power of independent rational thought. You only react. You do not even have a provable right to say that you understand the question. You are only reacting to sounds and symbols and have no control whatever over those reactions.

What is “independent rational thought�? It sounds like some lack of judgement on your part as you babble on about some you seem to be doin by believing you are reacting without symbols or self control.

If you deny the existence of free will, you are confessing that your thoughts and conclusions have no valiidity. Your mind does not exist; you have only involuntary reactions to stimuli, and you have no reason to believe that you think at all.

I am not.
You seem to be the one you can have no reason to think and are not reacting to any stimuli, including everything you know or have experienced. You seem to be the one reacting irrationally without apparent cause and then saying that it is proof of free-will.

When you claim that you have thought about it and concluded that there is no such thing as free will, you have already contradicted yourself and proven that you do not actually believe what you say.

What a poor demonstration of your free-will.

How can you "conclude" anything? How can you "think"? You have no power to choose to do either.

Dou you just make choices for no apparent reason?

The rest of your post was just as insulting.

[olavisjo]

If you deny the existence of free will, you are confessing that your thoughts and conclusions have no validity. Your mind does not exist; you have only involuntary reactions to stimuli, and you have no reason to believe that you think at all.

The naturalist does not renounce the use of their free will, they just can't explain it under naturalistic principles, so they do commit intellectual suicide and just say it is irrelevant or we will figure it out some day in the future.
I do not think that anyone believes that they do not have free will, it is just hard to admit that free will is a supernatural phenomena that we all posses and foreshadows a supernatural reality that we are so desperate to deny.

[Goat]

If you deny the existence of free will, you are confessing that your thoughts and conclusions have no validity. Your mind does not exist; you have only involuntary reactions to stimuli, and you have no reason to believe that you think at all.

The naturalist does not renounce the use of their free will, they just can't explain it under naturalistic principles, so they do commit intellectual suicide and just say it is irrelevant or we will figure it out some day in the future.
I do not think that anyone believes that they do not have free will, it is just hard to admit that free will is a supernatural phenomena that we all posses and foreshadows a supernatural reality that we are so desperate to deny.

Perhaps , the concept of 'free will' or 'predestination' is just meaningless to them. Why do you assume that since this 'dancing on the head of a pin' issue is of great importance to you, that it has any meaning to everyone, or in reality at all?

IMO, the whole 'free will' just give certain philosphies a 'leave your mind at the door' card, and allows them to give pat answers that mean absolutely nothing to questions'

"Why is there so much bad people in the world" .. Free will.
"If Christianity is so good, why are there ex-Christians" Free will.

[olavisjo]

Perhaps , the concept of 'free will' or 'predestination' is just meaningless to them. Why do you assume that since this 'dancing on the head of a pin' issue is of great importance to you, that it has any meaning to everyone, or in reality at all?

IMO, the whole 'free will' just give certain philosophies a 'leave your mind at the door' card, and allows them to give pat answers that mean absolutely nothing to questions'

"Why is there so much bad people in the world" .. Free will.
"If Christianity is so good, why are there ex-Christians" Free will.

I take it from your response that you do believe in free will.
However the problem is how do you explain the phenomena in naturalism? There is nothing in naturalism that gives rise to free will, but just the opposite, free will should not exist.
It would be nice to just pass off all the things we don't understand as just meaningless, but unfortunately that is just not how it works.

[cnorman18]

Pretty funny stuff, you sure went off on a rant including insults.
I was surprised by the entire false dichotomy you create with your jumps and oversimplifications.

I'm truly sorry you were insulted. I honestly can't see how that could be a legitimate complaint, though.

First, I addressed my post to no one; I was discussing ideas, not personalities.

Second, how could I possibly bear any responsibility for it if I had intended to. insult anyone? I have no choice in the matter, right? My behavior is predetermined.

I am still talking about ideas here. Yes, what I wrote was ridiculous hyperbole; it was intended to be. "No free will" is a ridiculous idea, and you very clearly DON'T really believe it,

I would seriously expect anyone who truly does not believe that free will exists to resign from this forum immediately as a matter of intellectual honesty.

Can you believe something you don’t believe or not believe something you believe?

That's not the question. The question is, do you have a CHOICE in the matter - or in the matter of what to think or do about anything?

I didn’t see where you show that I was of intellectually dishonest.

Where did I say you were? I displayed a public shoe with no name attached. If you want to stand up and indignantly announce that it fits, how is that my doing?

I am describing an extreme position on the matter of free will. As soon as you assume that I have any responsibility for my views at all, you deny that you hold that position and therefore my remarks must not apply to you.

If you DO really subscribe to this extreme negation of free will and assertion of total determinism, then people are not responsible for their behavior, right? Whence cometh insult? If your position is consistent, I am a helpless victim of circumstance and had no choice but to post what I did.

Lets look at your convoluted thinking.

If you have no free will, then you do not reason. Your thoughts are not thoughts; they are mere reactions to stimuli, and what you subjectively sense to be your "judgment" and "rational train of thought" are mere mechanical sequences of inevitable cause and effect.

How does it follow that if I don’t have free-will then I can’t reason?
What do you think thought is dependent upon?

If it is based upon any judgments and decisions you make, then it is based upon free will as well as stimuli and circumstance.

How is this "convoluted"?

What are “mere reactions� when we are looking at complex responses that include meaning? What has not been part of our evolution and development is usually learned and used to respond to human needs. You seem to think the needs are all outside of you as you randomly make choices not related to experience, knowledge, learning and sometimes following reasoning processes.
It is you that disconnects them fro the world you live in and the world around you to some illusion you are making meaningless choices for not reason or explanation.

I never said that one does not take experience, knowledge and learning into account when making decisions and choices, or that choices are made at random. But if you are making meaningful choices at all, how are you NOT exercising your free will?

That seems a very simple question to me.

If I am intellectually dishonest then you might be also intellectually dense or believe in magic. You are claiming something that has not reasons, explanation or causes or you are admitting responses are conditioned.

Oh? Where did I say that?

I never denied, and do not deny now, that experiences, learning, knowledge, memory, and even conditioned responses are factors in thought and behavior. I only maintain that there is one more factor, that being the individual human will. From your statements here, so do you.

I have seen nowhere on this thread any evidence that that factor does not exist - only that assumption.

I am explaining the clear and obvious implications of the idea that free will does not exist. I am "admitting" nothing; I don't believe that that idea is true, and I am demonstrating the absurdity of it.

Please explain to me how there can be any relationship whatever to a meaningful concept of "truth" if your perception of what is true and false is nothing but a mechanical and involuntary reaction.

I am not making them “mechanical and involuntary reaction�(s), they are conditioned responses that can also be novel while hey are conditioned by our language, meanings and culture. I see us as beautiful living organisms seeking that which we developed to find satisfaction with our complex reasoning responses where you want some random boogieman calling shots for no apparent reasons.

How can anyone "seek" anything if one has no power of choice? "Seeking" implies intent; intent implies conscious control of thought and action that can have an effect on that thought and action.

What "boogieman"? I am describing an automaton that has no choices, and the behavior of which is predetermined. Isn't that what a creature without free will necessarily is?

Is there really a significant relationship between "2 + 2" and "4"? How do you know? You are not thinking; your judgment and power to reason and decide does not exist. You have no power of independent rational thought. You only react. You do not even have a provable right to say that you understand the question. You are only reacting to sounds and symbols and have no control whatever over those reactions.

What is “independent rational thought�?

Shall we look up the definitions of the words? It seems a straightforward enough concept to me. For our purposes here, it would especially mean "mental processes over which the individual has some measure of control." "Control" implies free will, does it not?

If you do not control your thoughts, through the exercise of free will and choice, how are your thoughts able to distinguish between "true" and "false"? Where in that chain of perception and conditioned response do you "decide' that something is "true"?

If you have no free will, there is no "decide." Decisions and total determinism cannot exist in the same universe. Period, full stop.

It sounds like some lack of judgement on your part as you babble on about some you seem to be doin by believing you are reacting without symbols or self control.

Once again, I am demonstrating the absurdity of the position that there is no such thing as free will; and by the way, in my experience, when one is reduced to dismissing another's arguments as "babbling," one is merely indicating that (1) one does not understand them, or (2) that one cannot answer them effectively.

If you deny the existence of free will, you are confessing that your thoughts and conclusions have no valiidity. Your mind does not exist; you have only involuntary reactions to stimuli, and you have no reason to believe that you think at all.

I am not.

Then explain how "choices" exist where there is no power to choose, and how there can be a "reasoning process" and "judgment" when thoughts are predetermined and cannot possibly be other than what they are.

You seem to be the one you can have no reason to think and are not reacting to any stimuli, including everything you know or have experienced. You seem to be the one reacting irrationally without apparent cause and then saying that it is proof of free-will.

Prove that, please?

When did I say that free-will choices are "not reacting to stimuli" or "without apparent cause"?

When one makes a conscious decision, one is clearly taking into account information and experience and memory. The difference is that I think there is also input from an entity called a mind. That is why it's called a decision and a choice. The no-free-will position, if consistent, would hold that there is no meaningful input from any mind, or that any such input makes no difference.

When you claim that you have thought about it and concluded that there is no such thing as free will, you have already contradicted yourself and proven that you do not actually believe what you say.

What a poor demonstration of your free-will.

Can you address the argument, as opposed to attempting an unsupported ad hominem observation?

How can you "conclude" anything? How can you "think"? You have no power to choose to do either.

Dou you just make choices for no apparent reason?

Is that what I said? The operative key word here is "choice." If there is no free will, what can that word possibly mean?

The rest of your post was just as insulting.

I deny that any part of my post was insulting; and the rest of my post consisted of arguments to which you did not respond.

Therefore: continuing to pretend to rationally explain ideas and post them here as if they actually existed, and as if others had a choice about deciding whether to think them true or false, is inarguably either rank hypocrisy or unconsciously ironic foolishness.

To address you personally: I do not believe you to be a hypocrite; therefore I think you to be engaged in the latter. I don't think you have thought this position through; that is clearly indicated by the fact that you keep assuming the existence of "choices."

Remember: if you try to demonstrate otherwise, your "ideas" do not exist. They are illusions. You did not "conceive" of them; they were imposed on your "mind" by mere circumstance ....

Including memory and experience.

... and you have no right to claim that you "know" or even "think" them to be "true."

Your thoughts cannot be other than what they are. They have no more probative value than the shape of a cloud.

You have shot yourself in the head. What are you going to think with? How can you argue anything at all when you have denied that you possess the power of independent thought?

If there is no free will, how can you have a "choice" about anything?

Again: There are no insults here. We are discussing ideas.

[cnorman18]

If you deny the existence of free will, you are confessing that your thoughts and conclusions have no validity. Your mind does not exist; you have only involuntary reactions to stimuli, and you have no reason to believe that you think at all.

The naturalist does not renounce the use of their free will, they just can't explain it under naturalistic principles, so they do commit intellectual suicide and just say it is irrelevant or we will figure it out some day in the future.
I do not think that anyone believes that they do not have free will, it is just hard to admit that free will is a supernatural phenomena that we all posses and foreshadows a supernatural reality that we are so desperate to deny.

Sorry, that's a non sequitur. The power of volition. i.e., free will, can certainly have evolved just as surely as the power to walk upright. The ability to think and evaluate and make choices in unfamiliar situations is an obvious survival trait.

I believe in God, as it happens; but I do not believe that free will is a supernatural phenomenon any more than thought, vision, or the ability to eat and absorb nourishment.

[Goat]

Perhaps , the concept of 'free will' or 'predestination' is just meaningless to them. Why do you assume that since this 'dancing on the head of a pin' issue is of great importance to you, that it has any meaning to everyone, or in reality at all?

IMO, the whole 'free will' just give certain philosophies a 'leave your mind at the door' card, and allows them to give pat answers that mean absolutely nothing to questions'

"Why is there so much bad people in the world" .. Free will.
"If Christianity is so good, why are there ex-Christians" Free will.

I take it from your response that you do believe in free will.
However the problem is how do you explain the phenomena in naturalism? There is nothing in naturalism that gives rise to free will, but just the opposite, free will should not exist.
It would be nice to just pass off all the things we don't understand as just meaningless, but unfortunately that is just not how it works.

I don't believe that the concept is anything more than arguing about angels on the head of a pin. Both the concept of predetermination and free will is meaningless.