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?

[cnorman18]

I think we are getting closer Cnorman18.

I tend to look at the self as a memory or form of memory.
That doesn't mean it is just memory.
Even our experiences are a memory as we become conscious of something that has already happened before we experience it and the consciousness is a intense memory.
Or memories are also shaped by feelings and feeling are attached to memories.
Feeling has been shown to play an important part of memory.
It might sound rather mechanical to you with the limits of our words but it is very dynamic.

So far, so good. That all seems quite reasonable.

Our responses you like to call choice are often learned and adapted where they become unconscious where they hardly qualify as choice. We practice so we don't have to think about what we are doing.

I would agree with that to a large extent; some of our actions are all but automatic, e.g., stepping on the brake when we see a red light. Others, casual decisions like, well, what to have for lunch, that require only a moment's reflection, are probably largely automatic as well.

But here is where my objection lies: When we are discussing decision which require much reflection, thought and research - say, deciding where to place one's investments - whence cometh the sense that one is consciously deciding something? Granted the decision is influenced by knowledge, experience, memory, and the rest; but does that self-conscious intersection of memory and perception that we call the "self" have no input at all? If not, that sense of "deciding" must needs be an illusion. That seems neither credible nor reflective of experience to me.

Again, I grant "influence"; but the infinite regression of the influence of the experience, and the influence of the perception of that experience, and the influence of previous experiences on the perception of that experience, and so on, does not seem to me to prove that there is no influence from the self itself, so to speak, but only to assume that there is none.

We are pretty predictable and determined but we can't possible be predetermined as the conditions for our responses have not yet occurred.

I agree; and it seems to me that it follows that though our apparent choices are influenced by many things - which is confirmed by introspection - the proposition that there is another factor, with its origin in consciousness and conscious thought, cannot be finally ruled out. That is confirmed by introspection as well, and barring something more than the assumption that conscious thought itself is an illusion, I see no reason to reject that idea.

Being responsible for you actions might be better served if they understood why they make the choices they do rather then just acknowledge they did it.

Of course; but given that the number and nature of the layered separate influences is virtually infinite, I doubt very much that ALL the reasons for any given choice can ever be known; and as long as we assign human responsibility for ANY choices to ANY degree, we are admitting that choices are real and the conscious self has some input into making them.

Here's something else I have often reflected upon; as a teacher of 26 years' experience at various grade levels, I have taught more than a dozen sets of identical twins. One pair was so thoroughly identical that their parents were motivated to have a tiny dot tattooed on the heel of one of the girls in order to tell them apart as infants and toddlers. I saw the dot.

These twins often shared characteristics and traits that one might find hard to credit; they would finish each other's sentences, sense when the other was injured at a distance, speak the same words at the same moment, and so on.

But the interesting thing for our discussion here is that, even in cases where the parents were dumb enough to dress the kids identically every day and never allow them to be separated (e.g., in classes or after-school activities), the personalities, reactions, preferences, and choices of the twins were NEVER identical. They liked different foods, different subjects in school, different music, and different boys (or girls).

If we assume that the virtually infinitesimal differences in these kids' experiences (remember, they were genetically identical) can account for such striking differences in their reactions and choices, doesn't that render the proposition that "all our choices are determined" functionally meaningless and moot?

In short, if there is no predictive value to this "determinism" - and if it does not affect our assigning responsibility for our actions to some degree or other - well, what difference does it make?

[Gonzo]

What is the "self" you speak of aside from a culmination of experiences gathered from sensory organs and a genetic predisposition to interpret and reflect upon that information? And how is this outside influence of "self" not subject to the same environmental pressures?

[byofrcs]

.....

In short, if there is no predictive value to this "determinism" - and if it does not affect our assigning responsibility for our actions to some degree or other - well, what difference does it make?

For someone who says "WHOOO CAAARES? " a week ago you seem to care much more than the rest of us, so much so that I can only guess that your replies last week were simply a mechanism to deflect debate.

Unless you really do care, in which case we accept your original outburst as histrionics rather than meaningful polemics.

[olavisjo]

.....

In short, if there is no predictive value to this "determinism" - and if it does not affect our assigning responsibility for our actions to some degree or other - well, what difference does it make?

For someone who says "WHOOO CAAARES? " a week ago you seem to care much more than the rest of us, so much so that I can only guess that your replies last week were simply a mechanism to deflect debate.

Unless you really do care, in which case we accept your original outburst as histrionics rather than meaningful polemics.

Can we agree that we are all automatons that can't change the way the future will unfold, yet have no clue as to what it will be.
We are more like a train on a track than a ship at sea that can be steered.
We can't alter where the track takes us but we do hold each other responsible for where it does eventually take us, not because a person is responsible for his actions, but our own track demands that we do hold others responsible for where their track took them.

Essentially we are prisoners of time and destiny, some of us just have nicer cells, so we do not object as loudly.

The very words we use to comunicate with each other are not our own, but come from the working of a mathematical equation that is far bigger than the "Big Bang" itself.

[byofrcs]

.....

In short, if there is no predictive value to this "determinism" - and if it does not affect our assigning responsibility for our actions to some degree or other - well, what difference does it make?

For someone who says "WHOOO CAAARES? " a week ago you seem to care much more than the rest of us, so much so that I can only guess that your replies last week were simply a mechanism to deflect debate.

Unless you really do care, in which case we accept your original outburst as histrionics rather than meaningful polemics.

Can we agree that we are all automatons that can't change the way the future will unfold, yet have no clue as to what it will be.

No. We have the ability to change the future. It is not fixed. But we also have little way of predicting exactly what it will be.

We are deterministic according to our rules but these rules can be changed. That is our freedom. The electronic ignition in my car has a fixed set of rules. Unless I reflash it will not deviate from those rules. We, on the other hand, can adapt the rules according to our environment.

We are more like a train on a track than a ship at sea that can be steered.
We can't alter where the track takes us but we do hold each other responsible for where it does eventually take us, not because a person is responsible for his actions, but our own track demands that we do hold others responsible for where their track took them.

Essentially we are prisoners of time and destiny, some of us just have nicer cells, so we do not object as loudly.

We have the capability to fly as we will but society is the one that places us on tracks or in a prison cell or rather, to Judeo Christians - an abattoir.

Religion is the guard at best but it is but one link in a slaughterhouse chain. Your god relishes this pain and blood.

Well I don't think your god exists and I think we can lift your theocratic yoke from around our our necks and toss it into the gutter were it belongs.

The very words we use to comunicate with each other are not our own, but come from the working of a mathematical equation that is far bigger than the "Big Bang" itself.

We are all children of the Big Bang and what we have become will always be far bigger than the Big Bang as a tree is bigger than the seed.

The Big Bang is our seed and before it was nothing that makes any sense to us.

[olavisjo]

No. We have the ability to change the future. It is not fixed. But we also have little way of predicting exactly what it will be.

We are deterministic according to our rules but these rules can be changed.

How do we change the future? What evidence can you produce to back up the statement of fact that "it is not fixed" especially when reason says that it is.

Think math: f(a,b,c...) = x
not: f(a,b,c...) = x or y
Therefore, given any situation, there is only one possible outcome.

How do you change the rules?
Will we change gravity so water flows up hill?
Shall we make electricity flow through non-conductors?

If the law of causation were not fixed then science would not be possible.

[Goat]

No. We have the ability to change the future. It is not fixed. But we also have little way of predicting exactly what it will be.

We are deterministic according to our rules but these rules can be changed.

How do we change the future? What evidence can you produce to back up the statement of fact that "it is not fixed" especially when reason says that it is.

Think math: f(a,b,c...) = x
not: f(a,b,c...) = x or y
Therefore, given any situation, there is only one possible outcome.

How do you change the rules?
Will we change gravity so water flows up hill?
Shall we make electricity flow through non-conductors?

If the law of causation were not fixed then science would not be possible.

That is assuming that there is no randomness in the world. That is not a provable statement at this current time.

[olavisjo]

That is assuming that there is no randomness in the world. That is not a provable statement at this current time.

Are you proposing that there are events which have no cause?
Is that possible, or might they just be caused by the IPU, FSM or something else that you are unaware of?
Do you want to deny the law of cause and effect?

[Goat]

That is assuming that there is no randomness in the world. That is not a provable statement at this current time.

Are you proposing that there are events which have no cause?
Is that possible, or might they just be caused by the IPU, FSM or something else that you are unaware of?
Do you want to deny the law of cause and effect?

Do you know what the 'law of cause and effect' says? It says that effects can not happen before causes. It does not address events that have no cause.

And, there are events that some viewpoints of QM say have no cause. It is probabilistic rather than deterministic, at least to some interpretations. Thus far, the evidence is against local hidden variables.

[cnorman18]

.....

In short, if there is no predictive value to this "determinism" - and if it does not affect our assigning responsibility for our actions to some degree or other - well, what difference does it make?

For someone who says "WHOOO CAAARES? " a week ago you seem to care much more than the rest of us, so much so that I can only guess that your replies last week were simply a mechanism to deflect debate.

Unless you really do care, in which case we accept your original outburst as histrionics rather than meaningful polemics.

How is "What difference does it make?" differ substantially from "Who cares?" The point in both cases is that, in practical terms, it doesn't matter.

Why the ad hominem potshot?