Interest in free will has usually centered around the affirmation and/or a denunciation of it. Some very interesting thoughts on both sides have come out of these discussions, many well thought out and others not so much. Whatever the case, there's been a frequent problem with some of the terms involved, most often those concerning "free will" and "will."
As I see it, free will is important to many because without it would mean each of is nothing more than an automaton, which is anathema to the notion personal freedom. If I have no freedom of choice how can I be blamed for what I do? For Christians this has the added consequence of robbing the concept of sin/salvation of any meaning. So most people are loath to even entertain the idea of no free will. Free will is almost always regarded as a given.
Any exception to free will is commonly seen as temporary constraint. "I am free to to do this or that unless someone/thing comes and prevents it. Of course this isn't what the issue of free will is about at all. Free will is about the idea that, aside from any external constraints, "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." So I think a decent working definition of "free will" is just that: the ability to do differently if one wished.
Those who most disagree with this are the hard determinists, people claiming that everything we do has a cause. And because everything we do is caused then we could not have done differently, therefore it's absurd to place blame or praise. A pretty drastic notion, and one rejected by almost everyone. So whatever else is said about the issue of free will ultimately it must come down to this very basic level: Are we free to do other than what we chose or not? I say, No you are not. Free will is an illusion. But before going into why, we first need to get rid of the term "choice" because it assumes to be true the condition under consideration, freedom to do what we want. So no use of "choice," "choosing,"chosen," or any other form of the word.
There are only two ways in which actions can take place; completely randomly, or caused. By "completely randomly" I mean absolutely random, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused. This is the most common notion of "random" events: those we are unable to predict and appear to come about by pure chance. The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, appears to occur is at the subatomic level, which has no effect on superatomic events, those at which we operate. And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate anyway; completely randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So that leaves non-randomness as the operative agent of our actions. We do this or that because. . . . And the "cause" in "because" is telling. It signals a deterministic operation at work. What we do is determined by something. Were it not, what we do would be absolutely random in nature: for absolutely no reason at all. But as all of us claim from time to time, we do have reasons for what we do. And these reasons are the causes that negate any randomness.
So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless the causes leading to the event had been different. If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home. The previous chain of cause/effects inexorably determined where I ended up. So to is it with our decisions. We do what we do because all the relevant preceding cause/effect events inexorably led up to that very act and no other. There was no freedom to do any differently.
What does this all mean then? It means that we cannot do any any differently than what we do. Our actions are caused (determined) by previous events and nothing else. Even our wishing to think we could have done otherwise is a mental event that was determined by all the cause/effect events that led to it. We think as we do because. . . . And that "because" can never be any different than what it was. We have no will to do anything other than what we're caused to do. In effect then, the will does not exist, nor does choice, etc..
Of course this means that blame and praise come out as pretty hollow concepts. If you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them? To do so is like blaming or praising a rock for where it lies. It had no "choice" in the matter. Of course we can still claim to have free will if we define the term as being free of external constraints, but that's not really addressing free will, and why free will exists as an issue. The free will issue exists because people claim "I could have done differently if I had wished." Problem is, of course, they didn't wish differently because . . . .
Any disagreements?
Why Free Will is an illusion
Moderator: Moderators
-
Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Post #71
A fetus being aborted and a person walking along teh street unsuspecting of someone ready to shoot do not negate free will.koko wrote: If it is true that we have free will under all circumstances, then an abortion victim can easily walk out of impending doom. But such a thing is impossible. We have all seen or heard of stories such as when a good person who has treated people kindly all his life is walking along the street minding his own business when suddenly someone takes a shot and kills him. I could readily give you thousands of other scenarios, all of which prove there is no such thing as free will.
For free will to be exercised there needs to be both awareness of the circumstances and an ability to take some sort of action.
Post #73
You can never do as you please as your option. And that is not because of free will but because you cannot violate another person's free will. You can try to cheat them or intimidate them but if they see through you and stand their ground then you can't do what you please. They can stop you.koko wrote:
.. one can do what they please at their option. ..
Post #77
The effort that is made, particularly by prominent neuroscientists, is that if there is not free will in ALL cases and in ALL circumstances then there is no free will. This definition is false. We have free will but there may exist circumstance, some of which are beyond our control, as for example abortion, or where we have been deceived or trusted those that appear good and are really evil, where our free will has been affected. We may act in good faith but have not got enough facts. And that does not mean that the person is at fault.koko wrote: limited "free will"
Sure I can have dinner whenever I want and so can all else.
But the fetus inside the womb does not have that option at the hands of the abortionist.
For those who say everyone has free will under all circumstances, this claim is one that can never be proven.
In foul game play of evil people, a concealed threat is used. This makes the targeted person experience fear, but may not necessarily be able to assess their bodily reactivity as fear. There are two consequences to this.
One is that in states of fear rational thinking is suspended because the person attempts to first gather all information about a threat first.
The second is that because the threat is only subconsciously perceived they may be mistaken about their bodily reactivity and associate it with any ideas that may be mentally suggested as to be concurrent.
IMO the second one of these is due to medical misinformation about ESP. The person targeted is compromised. So they may lose their ability to act under free will on that occasion. But that does not mean that they don't have free will.
Post #78
We have varying degrees of free will, and this variation indicates its existence. Your example of the foetus strikes me as absurd in that there is no question of will in an unformed human. There is very little exercise of free will in a baby.koko wrote:Exactly. This is why there is no free will which implies that one can do what they please at their option. This certainly is not true for the aborted fetus or the victim of genocide.awareness and ability
The man shot in the street has nothing to do with the exercise of will. You seem to believe that in every situation in life we should be able to choose a course for there to be evidence of free will. In situations where we have need to exercise our will we do. The man in the street seeing a gunman can take evasive actions. If he does not see the gunman then free will is not in question.
You might as well say we have no intelligence since the man in the street did not intelligently move away.
-
koko
Post #79
[Replying to post 78 by marco]
But the fact is that free will advocates insist that we all have free will under all circumstances. That because of free will we are all self actuated. Whatever we achieve in life, it is because we did so on our own. That if you fail to achieve something or if you suffer in life, it is because you chose to fail and to suffer.
The Bible tells us there is no such thing. It says "a man can have nothing unless God gives it to him" {John 3:27}. That includes life, riches, health, or whatever. There simply is no "free will". The only thing that exists is God's will.
But the fact is that free will advocates insist that we all have free will under all circumstances. That because of free will we are all self actuated. Whatever we achieve in life, it is because we did so on our own. That if you fail to achieve something or if you suffer in life, it is because you chose to fail and to suffer.
The Bible tells us there is no such thing. It says "a man can have nothing unless God gives it to him" {John 3:27}. That includes life, riches, health, or whatever. There simply is no "free will". The only thing that exists is God's will.
Post #80
Well, if you are attacking that preposterous position, then there isn't much to say. I thought you were arguing against the intelligent version of what free will is: that we are in normal circumstances free to choose, barring tsunamis and thunderbolts.koko wrote: [Replying to post 78 by marco]
But the fact is that free will advocates insist that we all have free will under all circumstances. That because of free will we are all self actuated. Whatever we achieve in life, it is because we did so on our own. That if you fail to achieve something or if you suffer in life, it is because you chose to fail and to suffer.
Yes, the bible says a lot of stupid things but we have to go shopping and pay our taxes.koko wrote:
The Bible tells us there is no such thing. It says "a man can have nothing unless God gives it to him" {John 3:27}. That includes life, riches, health, or whatever. There simply is no "free will". The only thing that exists is God's will.
