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?

[tickitytak]

Okay, let us assume that there was a first strand of DNA that reproduced, and this DNA evolved to become a human that performs conscious acts everyday.
Then somewhere along this long journey, there must have been a first conscious act. Or would you say that the first conscious act was just a partial conscious act that also evolved to become a fully conscious act? Or are our conscious acts still only partially conscious, and we will never be 100% conscious?

Can you measure consciousness? Can you even define it? I cannot. We all have some kind of fuzzy notion of what consciousness is. Humans commit conscious acts, trees do not. Where do you draw the line? Sea squirts? Ants? Dogs? Chimpanzees?

As in most cases where a definitive line cannot be drawn, I strongly suspect that it is a matter of degree not a yes/no on/off kind of thing.

We can define meta-cognition. We can also define sentience, and everything in existence is sentient on some level. Afterall, sentience is just another aspect of interaction and everything must interact with itself or something else in order to exist. Absolutely no interaction equals nonexistence.

Since everything is sentient, the only thing that differentiates humans from other lifeforms is DNA and the only thing that gives humans any objective dignity is the acceptance of an unfalsifiable assumption. Not only is this assumption unprovable, but it's also illogical. If God is good, then we can assume that the soul of an aborted fetus will not suffer. One has to accept yet another unfalsifiable assumption that God wants these fetuses to live, even if their existence means that they'll experience needless suffering brought on my their parents' recklessness (i.e. having kids when they're not properly prepared to), which perpetuates more recklessness and suffering.

Honestly, I feel birth licenses would be a much more reasonable alternative to abortion. It doesn't make sense for people to be unrestricted in creating kids, but to have to meet specific requirements to adopt.

[tickitytak]

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.

About sums it up. I am perfectly content to say that I am no more than the sum of the pattern of my component atoms and their inevitable interactions with the natural world set in motion by the immutable clockwork of the laws of physics, winding down to a single, inescapable outcome. Will is a an illusion, free or otherwise. We are and do as the motions of waves and subatomic particles command us to do, no more and no less and no detours.

A theist can say that free will is a daily miracle given to us by God, but how can an atheist explain the concept?

No they can't, at least not under the traditional version of an all powerful, all knowing, all creating God. Such a being precludes free will by it's mere existence.

Well if an atheist were to accept the notion that our universe is only one of an infinite amount of universes that account for every conceivable possibility in existence, free will could exist in meta-cognitive choice. We literally choose which reality we want to experience since the infinite variations of reality are derived from possibilities and choices. It's another way of saying that every choice we make defines our reality and since we are aware of these infinite choices, we have free will.

[Sir Rhetor]

A bit off topic, but applicable to the initial post.

It is impossible to run a test on free will vs determinism. This is because no matter what the outcome of the test is, both parties will see it as "proof". Free will and determinism are both ways to explain our reality, and since any test we can run will be inside reality, they cannot test reality, because the test is reality.

We can say one thing, though. We are limited by the laws of the universe. This points the arrow slightly towards determinism. If the bad guy is a light year away, it will be impossible to catch him within the year, as long as he runs a bit. We cannot exceed the light-speed barrier, and so the crook's freedom is somewhat deterministic.

[Abraxas]

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.

About sums it up. I am perfectly content to say that I am no more than the sum of the pattern of my component atoms and their inevitable interactions with the natural world set in motion by the immutable clockwork of the laws of physics, winding down to a single, inescapable outcome. Will is a an illusion, free or otherwise. We are and do as the motions of waves and subatomic particles command us to do, no more and no less and no detours.

A theist can say that free will is a daily miracle given to us by God, but how can an atheist explain the concept?

No they can't, at least not under the traditional version of an all powerful, all knowing, all creating God. Such a being precludes free will by it's mere existence.

Well if an atheist were to accept the notion that our universe is only one of an infinite amount of universes that account for every conceivable possibility in existence, free will could exist in meta-cognitive choice. We literally choose which reality we want to experience since the infinite variations of reality are derived from possibilities and choices. It's another way of saying that every choice we make defines our reality and since we are aware of these infinite choices, we have free will.

Does that really help anything though? From beginning to end, the outcome is still predetermined, it just moves from a single pathway universe wherein only one set of events is guaranteed to unfold to a single pathway multiverse in which all paths are guaranteed to unfold. Once again, there is no possibility to deviate as each time a choice comes before you, you take all possible doors which are branches into new universes.

In order for there to be free will, there must be at least one moment, somewhere, there is a possibility of two or more different futures, and through choice, at least one of those is not actualized. In other words, free will implies possible variation.

[tickitytak]

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.

About sums it up. I am perfectly content to say that I am no more than the sum of the pattern of my component atoms and their inevitable interactions with the natural world set in motion by the immutable clockwork of the laws of physics, winding down to a single, inescapable outcome. Will is a an illusion, free or otherwise. We are and do as the motions of waves and subatomic particles command us to do, no more and no less and no detours.

A theist can say that free will is a daily miracle given to us by God, but how can an atheist explain the concept?

No they can't, at least not under the traditional version of an all powerful, all knowing, all creating God. Such a being precludes free will by it's mere existence.

Well if an atheist were to accept the notion that our universe is only one of an infinite amount of universes that account for every conceivable possibility in existence, free will could exist in meta-cognitive choice. We literally choose which reality we want to experience since the infinite variations of reality are derived from possibilities and choices. It's another way of saying that every choice we make defines our reality and since we are aware of these infinite choices, we have free will.

Does that really help anything though? From beginning to end, the outcome is still predetermined, it just moves from a single pathway universe wherein only one set of events is guaranteed to unfold to a single pathway multiverse in which all paths are guaranteed to unfold. Once again, there is no possibility to deviate as each time a choice comes before you, you take all possible doors which are branches into new universes.

In order for there to be free will, there must be at least one moment, somewhere, there is a possibility of two or more different futures, and through choice, at least one of those is not actualized. In other words, free will implies possible variation.

If all possibilities are guaranteed but one can only subjectively experience what they choose, isn't that free will? If I'm met with a decision of left or right, yes both possibilities will be objectively experienced but I will only subjectively experience whatever reality I have chosen. Now, my choice could certainly be determined, but the Free Will you're talking about is logically impossible:

One would have to be absolutely free of all interaction to make a truly free choice, but choice depends on interaction to be made. I suppose the only plausible act of true free will would be the creation of everything out of nothing, but Creation itself is illogical. Perhaps this one act of true free will is demonstrated by the perpetuation of a multi-versal existence with no origin, but then that would mean that no choice was ever made or that this choice is continuously made without consent. Haha, like i said: logically impossible.

[Abraxas]

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.

About sums it up. I am perfectly content to say that I am no more than the sum of the pattern of my component atoms and their inevitable interactions with the natural world set in motion by the immutable clockwork of the laws of physics, winding down to a single, inescapable outcome. Will is a an illusion, free or otherwise. We are and do as the motions of waves and subatomic particles command us to do, no more and no less and no detours.

A theist can say that free will is a daily miracle given to us by God, but how can an atheist explain the concept?

No they can't, at least not under the traditional version of an all powerful, all knowing, all creating God. Such a being precludes free will by it's mere existence.

Well if an atheist were to accept the notion that our universe is only one of an infinite amount of universes that account for every conceivable possibility in existence, free will could exist in meta-cognitive choice. We literally choose which reality we want to experience since the infinite variations of reality are derived from possibilities and choices. It's another way of saying that every choice we make defines our reality and since we are aware of these infinite choices, we have free will.

Does that really help anything though? From beginning to end, the outcome is still predetermined, it just moves from a single pathway universe wherein only one set of events is guaranteed to unfold to a single pathway multiverse in which all paths are guaranteed to unfold. Once again, there is no possibility to deviate as each time a choice comes before you, you take all possible doors which are branches into new universes.

In order for there to be free will, there must be at least one moment, somewhere, there is a possibility of two or more different futures, and through choice, at least one of those is not actualized. In other words, free will implies possible variation.

If all possibilities are guaranteed but one can only subjectively experience what they choose, isn't that free will? If I'm met with a decision of left or right, yes both possibilities will be objectively experienced but I will only subjectively experience whatever reality I have chosen. Now, my choice could certainly be determined, but the Free Will you're talking about is logically impossible:

Depends on how you interpret “I�. Looking back on it from a subjective point of view into your history, you will only recall experiencing one branch, however, looking forward at it, you will experience both. You are effectively split into two distinct entities at the moment of choice that exist in both but are unaware of each other. Further, in all cases you will always choose both at these forks and so the choices are predetermined, making free will a myth. To answer the final assertion, yes, I consider free will extremely unlikely as it is effectively a form of the special pleading logical fallacy when it comes to causality.

One would have to be absolutely free of all interaction to make a truly free choice, but choice depends on interaction to be made. I suppose the only plausible act of true free will would be the creation of everything out of nothing, but Creation itself is illogical. Perhaps this one act of true free will is demonstrated by the perpetuation of a multi-versal existence with no origin, but then that would mean that no choice was ever made or that this choice is continuously made without consent. Haha, like i said: logically impossible.

Not necessarily free of all interaction. One can be influenced to make a choice but not determined by them to, at least on a conceptual level. Imagine something like a truly random lottery. The odds might be millions or billions (or more) against, but the possibility could exist a soul or something with true free will might choose differently even under the influence of worldly events as they are. As long as the possibility exists, the will is free even if influenced. The one or all examples, however, leave nothing to chance as either you are railroaded down one track or all the bases are covered completely and so no possibility of variation exists.

One particular example of this school of thought I happen to like comes out of Jewish Mysticism which holds we owe it to all the futures we do not choose to make the most of our choices. That is to say, when we make a choice, all that could have been had we chosen differently never will be. To me, a concrete example of that sentence would be a moment of free will. However, from my perspective, no such moments exist.