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?

[Cathar1950]

i always feel like people get lost along the way when i start talking about this.

I get lost because you are trying to have it both ways, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that we are responsible for what will happen tomorrow but there is nothing we can do to change it. And our responsibility is based on the fact that we do not know what the future will bring. If this is not what you are saying, please set me straight and tell me what your position is.

Everything we do changes it but we learn and because we change things we are responsible. Most of what you do is unconscious, learned or dependent upon feeling.
If you kept putting your hand in the fire and it burned over and over because you were dependent on what you influences from the past that kept telling you to put it in the fire we shouldn't blame the influences, your learning or the fire for you not learning better.

[Miles]

That is true if Naturalism is true. (Naturalism being the religion of the atheist.)

I fail to see the cause/effect relationship you are implying here. Care to explain?

So, if I rob a bank tomorrow, I can tell the judge that I had no choice in the matter as it was determined for me to do it because a long chain of events that began at the formation of the universe made me do it.

You will if that's where the consequences of all the prior relevant impinging factors lead you to, otherwise you won't. If they don't then there's no way you can.

In other words, if Naturalism is true then there is no such thing as right and wrong actions, there is only determined upon us actions.

Ignoring the reference to "Naturalism" for obvious reasons, right and wrong are nothing but value judgments we assign to certain events, which we do because we cannot do otherwise. And, if one happens to distinguish right from wrong based on the nature of necessary determinancy, that's fine with me. In fact, it such logic seems quite sound.

Honestly, is that what you are willing to believe?

Well, the only alternative is to believe that some things happen by pure, unadulterated, random chance---they are without absolutely any cause. Know of any such thing: an uncaused event? If you do please share.

So, we do have proof that God does exist...

Sorry, but non sequiturs don't compute.

[bernee51]

Not incredulity - lack of any need, or reason for, nor evidence of any god.. If they were present credulity would not be an issue.

Agreed, very few people feel any need or reason to understand the universe that they find themselves in.

Attibuting the existence of the manifest universe to an unevidnced god is not 'understanding' it is 'gap filling'.

There is evidence, so I am sure that you meant to say, no evidence that is convincing to you. Even this thread has evidence that you could have easily refuted, ....

The only 'evidence' I have seen presented on this thread is 'thew universe exists threfroe god must have done it' - hardly evidence.

If you have other please present it.

So if free will is an illusion, as you seem to believe, then so is morality and a lot of other things that we as humans experience. In essence we are in a dream from which we can't seem to awaken from.

That is closer to the truth as I understand it.

We are biological creatures which have evolved a level of consciousness that allows self reflectivity. All that we make of what we perceive of the manifest universe - all our thoughts, beliefs, ideas - is, like a dream, a mental construct. We have not 'woken up' to the simple fact that the very idea of a separate self is indeed an illusion.

Since I am having difficulty understanding what evidence is supposed to look like, perhaps you would be willing to demonstrate what true evidence looks like by supporting the above claims.

There is no evidence of a 'soul' or 'consciousness' seperate from or able to exist apart from the physical, and psychology and biology would indicate this to be the case. Combine this with 40+ years of meditation and self-inquiry the only conclusion I can arrive at is the one presented.

If you can provide some guidance - built on substance not religion - as to how this is not the case it would be much appreciated.

For commentary on the evolutionary process within a religious structure I can recommend the writings of the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin.

But we have good reason to believe that our free will is truly free so there must be a supernatural law that overrides natural law.

And what 'good reason' would that be? And why is not the second part of youe\r sentence a non-sequitur from the first?

Humans perceive free will. Try this simple experiment, take a coin and place it on a table or desk with the heads side up, now turn it over.
Were the actions that you did or did not do, the result of what I wrote, or were they the result of your own decision? Could you have done anything different? Are you just an automaton that blindly follows the cues given by the world around you?
So it is fairly obvious that we do have a will and to deny that leads us to some very bizarre conclusions about our own nature.

Our sense of identity which leads to decisions we take - is formed out of our relationships with the manifest universe. We construct this identity based on beleifs, ideas, thoughts, wishes etc. How we respond to any given stimulus is in turn bound up in this idea of self. What we believe are actions are in reality reactions based on this idea of self - which in turn is based on memories of past experiences and anticiptions of future ones. How 'free' is 'free will' is if is bound by such restrictions.

The ONLY truly free being is the one who can act totally in the present - unbound by the mental constructs.

[Cathar1950]

The ONLY truly free being is the one who can act totally in the present - unbound by the mental constructs.

For the most part that is just what we do with the auto-systems, habits, learning to react without thinking by going with feelings. And they have been very useful.
Do plants live in the moment? I was reading where they communicate between cells much like animals do with more complex feed back mechanisms.
Then there is always our social nature as it relates to self and others as others are as real as the self.

[tickitytak]

Our sense of identity which leads to decisions we take - is formed out of our relationships with the manifest universe. We construct this identity based on beleifs, ideas, thoughts, wishes etc. How we respond to any given stimulus is in turn bound up in this idea of self. What we believe are actions are in reality reactions based on this idea of self - which in turn is based on memories of past experiences and anticiptions of future ones. How 'free' is 'free will' is if is bound by such restrictions.

The ONLY truly free being is the one who can act totally in the present - unbound by the mental constructs.

i agree. our actions and decisions and just reactions to the self, our own consciousness. i just don't feel that truly free will is a possibility; the self is required for choice. to be free of the self is to be free of choice.

hmm it's an interesting paradox.

[tickitytak]

i always feel like people get lost along the way when i start talking about this.

I get lost because you are trying to have it both ways, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that we are responsible for what will happen tomorrow but there is nothing we can do to change it. And our responsibility is based on the fact that we do not know what the future will bring. If this is not what you are saying, please set me straight and tell me what your position is.

yes. this is why choice is an illusion, but it is only through this illusion that choice can exist. it's real while it isn't. we're responsible while we're not.

responsibility is just a tool for learning.

[olavisjo]

There is evidence, so I am sure that you meant to say, no evidence that is convincing to you. Even this thread has evidence that you could have easily refuted, ....

The only 'evidence' I have seen presented on this thread is 'thew universe exists threfroe god must have done it' - hardly evidence.

That is all the evidence that we need.

Which part of my reasoning do you dispute?

A. The law of cause and effect. Everything that happens was caused by something(s) that happened prior.

B. Information is the result of cause and effect. The information you are reading was caused by my thoughts which was caused by my past which was caused by evolution which was caused by debris from a supernova which was caused by a hydrogen cloud which was caused by the big bang...

C. Conclusion. All the information that exists was created by chance or on purpose, when the universe began, only it was archived in the position and momentum of the first matter and energy to be revealed over billions of years of cause and effect.

So, if you accept my first premise (cause and effect) then you must accept that information can not be created, it can only come from the past. Yet new information is created fresh everyday so all the information you see around you was either caused, at the beginning of the universe, by random chance or the will of a very powerful being that we can call God.
The odds of it happening by chance is infinitesimally small so goddidit.

That is about as simple as it gets.

[tickitytak]

That is all the evidence that we need.

Which part of my reasoning do you dispute?

A. The law of cause and effect. Everything that happens was caused by something(s) that happened prior.

agreed.

B. Information is the result of cause and effect. The information you are reading was caused by my thoughts which was caused by my past which was caused by evolution which was caused by debris from a supernova which was caused by a hydrogen cloud which was caused by the big bang...

sure.

C. Conclusion. All the information that exists was created by chance or on purpose, when the universe began, only it was archived in the position and momentum of the first matter and energy to be revealed over billions of years of cause and effect.

first of all, chance and purpose both imply intent.. meaning both imply God. the other option would be that all of this information just simply exists, that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes (and phases of universes), or that the death of this one and only universe is the birth of another single universe. the existence of this universe is not evidence of a higher being.

So, if you accept my first premise (cause and effect) then you must accept that information can not be created, it can only come from the past. Yet new information is created fresh everyday so all the information you see around you was either caused, at the beginning of the universe, by random chance or the will of a very powerful being that we can call God.
The odds of it happening by chance is infinitesimally small so goddidit.

That is about as simple as it gets.

not only do i not understand what you mean by "new information", but what created God?

[Miles]

B. Information is the result of cause and effect. The information you are reading was caused by my thoughts which was caused by my past which was caused by evolution which was caused by debris from a supernova which was caused by a hydrogen cloud which was caused by the big bang...

C. Conclusion. All the information that exists was created by chance or on purpose, when the universe began, only it was archived in the position and momentum of the first matter and energy to be revealed over billions of years of cause and effect.

The word "information" is commonly regarded as denoting knowledge.

• in-for-ma-tion [in-fer-mey-shuhn]
  
  
  –noun
  1. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
  
  2. knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.

So for information to exist there must necessarily be an apprehending mind---something capable of knowing---which, as far as we know, only came on the scene about a billion years ago with the appearance of multicellular life. This means that information has only existed for about 7% of the age of the universe.

But maybe it isn't really "information" that you have in mind????? May want to try another term.

[bernee51]

There is evidence, so I am sure that you meant to say, no evidence that is convincing to you. Even this thread has evidence that you could have easily refuted, ....

The only 'evidence' I have seen presented on this thread is 'thew universe exists threfroe god must have done it' - hardly evidence.

That is all the evidence that we need.

That is al the evidence YOU need.

Which part of my reasoning do you dispute?

A. The law of cause and effect. Everything that happens was caused by something(s) that happened prior.

There is certainly the appearanec of cause and effect as a result of our concept of time.

What we call cause becomes effect and effect becomes a cause - cause and effect are essentially the same.

If we look at 'now' rather than a period of time we do not see cause and effect - we see an emerging and emergent state of existence.

"Now" has always been and will always be. The idea, the concept, of a creation and a creator exists for the same reason the sensse of individual self exists - and like the individual self it is illusory.

So, if you accept my first premise (cause and effect) then you must accept that information can not be created, it can only come from the past.

Clearly I do not accept it.

The odds of it happening by chance is infinitesimally small so goddidit.

The odds of you being you (and me being me) are around 1,500,000,000,000 to one - yet we exist as unique beings.

That is about as simple as it gets.

If you say so....