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?

[olavisjo]

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.

"Events that have no cause" CANNOT be shown to exist using evidence other than opinion, conjecture, testimonials, or scientific promotional material.
The world is full of "viewpoints", but without evidence they are no better than supernatural claims, in fact they are supernatural claims.
Think about it for a moment, you are proposing that there exists events that do not obey "natural law", they would then be supernatural by definition. Will you admit that you do have belief in the supernatural? Where humans are a prime example of a supernatural entity, as we can create out of nothing a causal chain.

[Goat]

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.

"Events that have no cause" CANNOT be shown to exist using evidence other than opinion, conjecture, testimonials, or scientific promotional material.
The world is full of "viewpoints", but without evidence they are no better than supernatural claims, in fact they are supernatural claims.
Think about it for a moment, you are proposing that there exists events that do not obey "natural law", they would then be supernatural by definition. Will you admit that you do have belief in the supernatural? Where humans are a prime example of a supernatural entity, as we can create out of nothing a causal chain.

Tell me, do you have a degree in Physics? Do you have any education about how quantum mechanics work? Can you explain to me how to predict when a specific atom of a radioactive substance will decay? Can you explain to me Bell's theorem, and how it is tested repeatedly?

I am going to say that QM follows a 'natural law', but it is merely that the law it follows on a micro scale is counter intuitive. And no, it does not have anything to do with a 'supernatural entity'. So sorry, but you are pushing your preconceptions onto the universe, and frankly, the universe isn't listening to you.

[olavisjo]

Tell me, do you have a degree in Physics? Do you have any education about how quantum mechanics work? Can you explain to me how to predict when a specific atom of a radioactive substance will decay? Can you explain to me Bell's theorem, and how it is tested repeatedly?

I am going to say that QM follows a 'natural law', but it is merely that the law it follows on a micro scale is counter intuitive. And no, it does not have anything to do with a 'supernatural entity'. So sorry, but you are pushing your preconceptions onto the universe, and frankly, the universe isn't listening to you.

No, unlike you, I do not have a degree in Physics, and I don't know much about quantum mechanics, I can't explain when atoms decay, and Bell's theorem is a mystery to me.
But that is all irrelevant, what I am saying is the exact same thing that you are saying, "QM follows a 'natural law'" just as everything else, just because it is counter intuitive or just not understandable to us does not make any difference.
As such, given any situation there is only one outcome, the idea that things could have been any different is a human fantasy, we are predestined to our future just as certainly as we can't alter our past.
So, what preconception am I pushing on the universe? That all things obey the natural laws of the same universe? I think that, at this point, you are so confused that you don't even know if you are trying to agree or disagree with me.
So tell me again, do all things in the universe obey natural law or not?

[Goat]

Tell me, do you have a degree in Physics? Do you have any education about how quantum mechanics work? Can you explain to me how to predict when a specific atom of a radioactive substance will decay? Can you explain to me Bell's theorem, and how it is tested repeatedly?

I am going to say that QM follows a 'natural law', but it is merely that the law it follows on a micro scale is counter intuitive. And no, it does not have anything to do with a 'supernatural entity'. So sorry, but you are pushing your preconceptions onto the universe, and frankly, the universe isn't listening to you.

No, unlike you, I do not have a degree in Physics, and I don't know much about quantum mechanics, I can't explain when atoms decay, and Bell's theorem is a mystery to me.
But that is all irrelevant, what I am saying is the exact same thing that you are saying, "QM follows a 'natural law'" just as everything else, just because it is counter intuitive or just not understandable to us does not make any difference.
As such, given any situation there is only one outcome, the idea that things could have been any different is a human fantasy, we are predestined to our future just as certainly as we can't alter our past.
So, what preconception am I pushing on the universe? That all things obey the natural laws of the same universe? I think that, at this point, you are so confused that you don't even know if you are trying to agree or disagree with me.
So tell me again, do all things in the universe obey natural law or not?

They follow the various laws of physics. We might not know all the interactions, but I don't see any reason that there are violations of the laws we know.

It that 'natural law'? I have no idea what 'natural law' is. That phrase has been used to justify lots of things that I find unnatural.

[olavisjo]

They follow the various laws of physics. We might not know all the interactions, but I don't see any reason that there are violations of the laws we know.

It that 'natural law'? I have no idea what 'natural law' is. That phrase has been used to justify lots of things that I find unnatural.

By natural law we mean simply the laws of the physical world as opposed to any supernatural laws or gods etc.

We do not need to know what all these laws are, but we do know that all the things in the universe obey these laws, therefore given any situation there will only be one possible outcome.

In other words the future is just as fixed as the past.

This is the only logical conclusion of naturalism. To deny this is to deny naturalism and the scientific method and rational thinking. But don't be too concerned, there is more to reality than what meets the eye. If you can accept this, you are ready for the supernatural.

[Goat]

They follow the various laws of physics. We might not know all the interactions, but I don't see any reason that there are violations of the laws we know.

It that 'natural law'? I have no idea what 'natural law' is. That phrase has been used to justify lots of things that I find unnatural.

By natural law we mean simply the laws of the physical world as opposed to any supernatural laws or gods etc.

We do not need to know what all these laws are, but we do know that all the things in the universe obey these laws, therefore given any situation there will only be one possible outcome.

In other words the future is just as fixed as the past.

This is the only logical conclusion of naturalism. To deny this is to deny naturalism and the scientific method and rational thinking. But don't be too concerned, there is more to reality than what meets the eye. If you can accept this, you are ready for the supernatural.

Why is that the only logical conclusion for naturalism?? You have not made your case there.. as a matter of fact, heidelbergs uncertainty principle as well as bell theorem show otherwise.

[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.

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.

But it does matter in very practical terms. I think the arguments related to free will are crucial in fatally destroying certain definitions of God and qualifying justice and morality and help define the purpose of humanity with respect to cause and effect.

So it matters. All things from the minds of human matter in some way.

Why the ad hominem potshot?

There is no ad hominem. Your repeated use of uppercase was an emotional outburst intended to illicit a response. It matches the definition of histrionics.

Polemic is not derogatory in the form of debate we have here. If more people used polemic arguments around here then debate would be a lot more exciting.

[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.

But it does matter in very practical terms.

So your objection is not that my position or attitude has changed, as you claimed in your last, but that it has NOT changed. Who's being inconsistent now?

I think the arguments related to free will are crucial in fatally destroying certain definitions of God...

So your objection is not so much motivated by objections to free will, but by antipathy to certain kinds of theism? I find that strange. It also seems a rather indirect way to attack ideas that can more effectively be countered in other ways.

...and qualifying justice and morality...

Please explain, in practical, down-to-earth terms, how that will work. I decline to give examples; all that I can think of seem absurd, insulting, and excessively polemical.

...and help define the purpose of humanity with respect to cause and effect.

Again: Please explain the practical application of the nonexistence of free will in everyday life.

How can there be a "purpose of humanity" if there is nothing BUT cause and effect? Are we not then just objects without volition, like animals and trees and stars? Does a stone have a "purpose"? Seems to me the corallary of this idea is that humanity has no purpose; it just IS.

So it matters. All things from the minds of human matter in some way.

In the same sense that other absurd and self-contradictory ideas matter, I suppose so.

Why the ad hominem potshot?

There is no ad hominem. Your repeated use of uppercase was an emotional outburst intended to illicit a response. It matches the definition of histrionics.

Does it?

his·tri·on·ics Pronunciation:
\-niks\
Function: noun
plural but singular or plural in construction
Date: 1864
1 : theatrical performances
2 : deliberate display of emotion for effect

Emphasis does not necessarily imply emotion. Period, full stop.

Even if it did, your statements address my attitude and not my argument, and are therefore absolutely ad hominem.

By the way, the word is "elicit," not "illicit."

Polemic is not derogatory in the form of debate we have here.

I didn't say it was derogatory; I said it was ad hominem, about the debater as opposed to the argument; and that, it absolutely was.

If more people used polemic arguments around here then debate would be a lot more exciting.

Is the object of debate excitement or the exchange of ideas?

po·lem·ic
Pronunciation: \pə-ˈle-mik\
Function: noun
Etymology: French polémique, from Middle French, from polemique controversial, from Greek polemikos warlike, hostile, from polemos war; perhaps akin to Greek pelemizein to shake, Old English ealfelo baleful
Date: 1638
1 a: an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another
b: the art or practice of disputation or controversy —usually used in plural but singular or plural in construction
2: an aggressive controversialist : disputant — po·lem·i·cist \-ˈle-mə-sist\ noun

I don't think aggressiveness for aggressiveness's sake is particularly productive. In my opinion, that's more about ego inflation and chest-pounding than about actual debate. If I want excitement, I'll rent an Arnold movie. I'm interested in ideas.

I'll ask the same question I've been asking for some time here: if there is no such thing as free will, what are we all doing here? Why this pretense that we are trying to convince others of anything if they have no choice about whether to agree with it or not? How can we decide that an idea is true if we can't decide anything at all?

If our sensations of thinking and deciding are just illusions, why bother to pretend to "debate"?

You can't have it both ways. If there is no free will, voluntary thought has no meaning or validity. If thoughts can be controlled and choices can be made, then free will exists.

Further; as I said in the first place, none of this matters in a practical sense. We seem to be constrained to keep pretending to make decisions whether we actually are, in some rarefied theoretical sense, or not; therefore this theory, whether or not it is true, is of absolutely no practical significance at all.

If this idea can be applied in any practical way, please demonstrate that.

One more note: it has been asserted here several times now that an event's occurrence is proof that it could have happened in no other way. I'm sorry, but that's logical nonsense; by that standard, the only way that idea could be proven false is if two different and mutually exclusive things happened at the same time. SOMETHING has to happen; that it does happen is no proof of anything at all.

That "proof" is precisely as valid as the proposition that the existence of the Universe is proof that it was created - that is to say, not valid at all. If the only way to disprove Creation is for the universe not to exist, you have stated a truism and not a proof.

The same applies here. If the only way to disprove the idea that only one thing can happen is for something else to happen, the proposition has no meaning, because "something else" is defined as "something other than what actually happened," which cannot, by definition, exist.

I appreciate the absurd as much as anyone, and it's fun to toss these ideas around; but to pretend that they have any more practical importance than "how many angels can do the Macarena in a shot glass" is also absurd.

[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.

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.

But it does matter in very practical terms.

So your objection is not that my position or attitude has changed, as you claimed in your last, but that it has NOT changed. Who's being inconsistent now?

It was the fact that you kept posting that makes your argument inconsistent. If you were consistent with your first argument of "WHOOO CAAARES? " then you wouldn't keep posting.

Your argument was saying that the question should not be debated and yet you continue to reply.

I think the arguments related to free will are crucial in fatally destroying certain definitions of God...

So your objection is not so much motivated by objections to free will, but by antipathy to certain kinds of theism? I find that strange. It also seems a rather indirect way to attack ideas that can more effectively be countered in other ways.

I doubt that you find it strange because you know that to bring down a pedestal on which people place an argument you can push it over or undermine it. I choose as I see fit.

...and qualifying justice and morality...

Please explain, in practical, down-to-earth terms, how that will work. I decline to give examples; all that I can think of seem absurd, insulting, and excessively polemical.

From experience it is somewhat pointless to reply to those that self deprecate for effect.

...and help define the purpose of humanity with respect to cause and effect.

Again: Please explain the practical application of the nonexistence of free will in everyday life.

The issue isn't the existence nor non-existence of free will but that there is an imprecise definition of what it is which obscures how humans choose goals.

How can there be a "purpose of humanity" if there is nothing BUT cause and effect? Are we not then just objects without volition, like animals and trees and stars? Does a stone have a "purpose"? Seems to me the corallary of this idea is that humanity has no purpose; it just IS.

Purpose is a human word that is used to state a goal as an effect that is the result of a casual chain.

Given humans haven't defined a goal for any arbitrary rock then asking what purpose that has is irrelevant. If a rock is used with a goal in mind e.g. as a door stop then it has a purpose.

As humans invented the word purpose then the purpose of humanity is simply what goals we want. It is that simple.

So it matters. All things from the minds of human matter in some way.

In the same sense that other absurd and self-contradictory ideas matter, I suppose so.

Why the ad hominem potshot?

There is no ad hominem. Your repeated use of uppercase was an emotional outburst intended to illicit a response. It matches the definition of histrionics.

Does it?

his·tri·on·ics Pronunciation:
\-niks\
Function: noun
plural but singular or plural in construction
Date: 1864
1 : theatrical performances
2 : deliberate display of emotion for effect

Emphasis does not necessarily imply emotion. Period, full stop.

Even if it did, your statements address my attitude and not my argument, and are therefore absolutely ad hominem.

By the way, the word is "elicit," not "illicit."

I do not care about the person behind the argument i.e. I did not characterise the person but their delivery of the argument. I characterised your use of uppercase with double quotes, mis-spellings as theatrical.

I do use a spellchecker so an error like illicit for elicit is regrettable if somewhat Freudian.

Polemic is not derogatory in the form of debate we have here.

I didn't say it was derogatory; I said it was ad hominem, about the debater as opposed to the argument; and that, it absolutely was.

Derogatory usually means something against the person i.e. ad hominem therefore if an argument is ad hominem then it is usually derogatory. A moot point anyway as my original reply was also not attacking the person but their argument which includes their method of delivery.

ad hominem is only against the person. If someone wishes to use emotion to present their argument then it is not ad hominem to comment on this method of delivery. Histrionics is the perfect description.

If more people used polemic arguments around here then debate would be a lot more exciting.

Is the object of debate excitement or the exchange of ideas?

How about both ?

po·lem·ic
Pronunciation: \pə-ˈle-mik\
Function: noun
Etymology: French polémique, from Middle French, from polemique controversial, from Greek polemikos warlike, hostile, from polemos war; perhaps akin to Greek pelemizein to shake, Old English ealfelo baleful
Date: 1638
1 a: an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another
b: the art or practice of disputation or controversy —usually used in plural but singular or plural in construction
2: an aggressive controversialist : disputant — po·lem·i·cist \-ˈle-mə-sist\ noun

I don't think aggressiveness for aggressiveness's sake is particularly productive. In my opinion, that's more about ego inflation and chest-pounding than about actual debate. If I want excitement, I'll rent an Arnold movie. I'm interested in ideas.

And I agree.

I think you'll find that you have incorrectly considered that I'm the aggressive one here when I actually characterised your argument as either "histrionics" or "meaningful polemics".

So does that mean that you are characterising me as aggressive (q.v. ad hominem ) ?

I'll ask the same question I've been asking for some time here: if there is no such thing as free will, what are we all doing here? Why this pretense that we are trying to convince others of anything if they have no choice about whether to agree with it or not? How can we decide that an idea is true if we can't decide anything at all?

Given we can set goals then we can set a purpose. If our free will is the ability to define rules then a goal of debate is to present new rules to others.

If our sensations of thinking and deciding are just illusions, why bother to pretend to "debate"?

You can't have it both ways. If there is no free will, voluntary thought has no meaning or validity. If thoughts can be controlled and choices can be made, then free will exists.

Yes that is obvious.

Further; as I said in the first place, none of this matters in a practical sense. We seem to be constrained to keep pretending to make decisions whether we actually are, in some rarefied theoretical sense, or not; therefore this theory, whether or not it is true, is of absolutely no practical significance at all.

If this idea can be applied in any practical way, please demonstrate that.

As I have mentioned the practical sense is our rule set that is used to control our causal chain of cause and effect.

What set of rules we learn and how we learn to add new rules is very important to what society we get.

One more note: it has been asserted here several times now that an event's occurrence is proof that it could have happened in no other way. I'm sorry, but that's logical nonsense; by that standard, the only way that idea could be proven false is if two different and mutually exclusive things happened at the same time. SOMETHING has to happen; that it does happen is no proof of anything at all.

I'll let whomever said that to reply to that.

That "proof" is precisely as valid as the proposition that the existence of the Universe is proof that it was created - that is to say, not valid at all. If the only way to disprove Creation is for the universe not to exist, you have stated a truism and not a proof.

The same applies here. If the only way to disprove the idea that only one thing can happen is for something else to happen, the proposition has no meaning, because "something else" is defined as "something other than what actually happened," which cannot, by definition, exist.

I appreciate the absurd as much as anyone, and it's fun to toss these ideas around; but to pretend that they have any more practical importance than "how many angels can do the Macarena in a shot glass" is also absurd.

This last bit isn't part of my thread.

[Gonzo]

My friends, I just recently discovered some shocking news regarding this topic that should provide for a more intriguing discussion. Apparently your mind decides what it is going to do, before you become consciously aware of it, read more here

If that isn't a culmination of past experiences determining your actions, I don't know what is.