Free will does not exist!

Originally posted by Conrau K
Given that our consciousness is the product of chemicals and their interactions and influences from the environment, and that our thoughts are dictated by predispositions (as the result of inheritance). Then it is impossible that we can truly make a free decision. Hence, we have no free will.
This also has implications for law. Is a person truly accountab ...[text shortened]... ably all other theists) have been lied to in some way as a consequence.

Anyone disagree?

There are a lot of 'givens' in your statement. It sounds like a tenious linking of if 'this then that' thinking. If we really are just a bunch of chemicals then the whole games up anyway isn't it? I thought that was what God was for , to give human life an extra dimension of choice over physical/animal existence? CS Lewis is a good read on this subject. Read Mere Christianity , there's not enough room to explain it here.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You keep saying that choice must be random to be free, I beg to
differ. Random choices are not free choices, they aimless ones
nothing more. Aimless or random, do not equal free will choices,
they don’t equal choices at all, but are simply aimless actions
without meaning or purpose. Choice itself requires something to
be done deliberately, action or in ...[text shortened]... th the garbage type of
mentality that people may have by always taking the easy way out.
Kelly

Lets personify free will in a person. Lets say this person is at a cross roads. What define this person (free will) is his ability to choose. Which road should he choose? According to your analogy there are forces pushing and pulling. I'll represent them as other people trying to persuade or coerce the person into "choosing" a road. Now if free will "chooses" one road it will be the result of these forces.

If there is a free will it must escape these forces. Visted suggested a 'ghost inside the machine' or what might be just as suitable is a 'soul' or something in the astral realms. All that matters is that there is no causality (for conveience I have used the solecism of "causality", I do acknowledge Quantum mechanics however this will not impairt my argument). If there is no causality then the result must be random (this is true for everything). Hence, free will must be random.

Choice itself requires something to
be done deliberately, action or inaction both require a choice to
be made, both are made at times under compulsion, and some
times without compulsion.
As i have demonstrated a compulsion would negate the existence of free will. As for deliberation I don't deny it. I have discussed it before. I belief "choice" is dictated by it. However, that doesn't make it free.


Your views about aimless or random actions of will, do they show
intent with freedom of will? I think not, but someone who to their
own harm does something that they think is the right thing to do
even though it costs them, for me that shows free will.

The act of altruism can be explained by other things. For instance, the deliberation porcess (like a computer) might determine (through an evaluation function) that its in its best interests to die for its children (i.e. because of an evolutionary disposition). Or that person might brainwahsed. Who knows?

Originally posted by ASROMA
Hi Conrau

Firstly I would like to thank you for the thought provoking and extremely interesting topic as well as your subsequent posts, which in my opinion show a thorough interest and research.

Thank you.

I would like to put a few questions and points to you and I hope that you would endear me.

However, please forgive me if I exhibit any ignoranc s.

I much appreciate everything you have contributed and I hope you continue to do so.

I think you have surmised alot of what has been said. I don't think you were being satirical, maybe more obsequeous?

Are you saying that we are a product of our environment, external factors and internal genetics etc, which have completely programmed our brains, and continue to do so?

I am saying that we are all the result of somekind of causality (to be more succinct).

Thus free will is an illusion because ultimately, the illusion of choice boils down to our brain processing various 'alternatives' by means of chemical reactions, and hence arrives at a conclusion.

Yes, thats right.

Hence we do not control our thoughts but our thoughts control us, simply because our brain reasons in a certain way given all the factors that make up its constitution.

It depends. I reject Plato, Descartes and Locke and assume that out thoughts are chemistry. I dont see any separataion between the phsycial world and the mental.

But in context of the current discussion, let us assume that person X is faced with a variety of alternatives from which he must 'choose'
Assuming an identical background and identical set of circumstances each time, will he arrive at the same 'choice' in an infinite number of trials?

No, he will arrive at all possible choices. This is the strange part of QM (Quantum mechanics).

Are all of our ‘choices’ governed by chemistry?

Many behaviours are governed by predispositions which require an input from the environment.

What are your thoughts on destiny?

I believe in destiny, so long as i accept that for every circumsance there can be more then one (in accordance with indeterminacy of QM).

Originally posted by knightmeister
There are a lot of 'givens' in your statement. It sounds like a tenious linking of if 'this then that' thinking. If we really are just a bunch of chemicals then the whole games up anyway isn't it? I thought that was what God was for , to give human life an extra dimension of choice over physical/animal existence? CS Lewis is a good read on this subject. Read Mere Christianity , there's not enough room to explain it here.

If we really are just a bunch of chemicals then the whole games up anyway isn't it?

If you mean accountabilityt then yes. HOwever, i believe society can function without the illusion of free will. Free will's non-existence doesn't preclude the
existence of God. It just means Christianity was wrong.

However, I also suspect that this is partly why Jesus said don't judge others.
I certainly believe religion does offer alot of meaning to some people.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Lets personify free will in a person. Lets say this person is at a cross roads. What define this person (free will) is his ability to choose. Which road should he choose? According to your analogy there are forces pushing and pulling. I'll represent them as other people trying to persuade or coerce the person into "choosing" a road. Now if free will "choose ...[text shortened]... use of an evolutionary disposition). Or that person might brainwahsed. Who knows?

If there is no causality then the result must be random (this is true for everything). Hence, free will must be random.

Yes, if by "free will" you mean a libertarian notion of free will. Your post underlines an inescapable fact -- namely, that the libertarian notion of free will is completely and utterly incoherent. This seems to be the notion that most people have of free will: something like there exist two parallel worlds, both completely identical in every single solitary way up until time zero; then at time zero, in world 1, you choose action A; then they ask if it is possible that at time zero, in world 2, you could freely choose action B instead. But as you correctly point out, this notion of free will is dreadfully confused from the get-go. For every action (and the willing of an action is itself an action) is either caused or random. If it is caused, then the will is not free in the libertarian sense. Then under the libertarian notion, the only possibility left for "free will" is a dreadful type of randomness. Thus, the libertarian notion of free will is ridiculously absurd, inasmuch as it is absurd to confuse randomness with free choice. The only type of free will that makes any sense at all is some form of compatibilism, or soft determinism, whereby the agent endorses the maxim of an undertaken action through sufficient internal reflection, even if it happens to be the case that the ultimate cause of the undertaken action is external to the agent.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Lets personify free will in a person. Lets say this person is at a cross roads. What define this person (free will) is his ability to choose. Which road should he choose? According to your analogy there are forces pushing and pulling. I'll represent them as other people trying to persuade or coerce the person into "choosing" a road. Now if free will "choose ...[text shortened]... use of an evolutionary disposition). Or that person might brainwahsed. Who knows?

If there is a free will it must escape these forces. Visted suggested a 'ghost inside the machine' or what might be just as suitable is a 'soul' or something in the astral realms. All that matters is that there is no causality (for conveience I have used the solecism of "causality", I do acknowledge Quantum mechanics however this will not impairt my argument). If there is no causality then the result must be random (this is true for everything). Hence, free will must be random.

I believe you again are describing the oblivious and detached not
freedom of will. As I understand your point, it just the nonchalant
of desire and attachment to anything that seems to make you think
freedom cannot be true. Why does it matter if there are forces at
play against the will of anyone? If they have forces attempting to
sway them one way or another, if they are free, they will still do as
they see fit, that is freedom. If as you describe there is any force at
play to push or pull a choice out of someone, that is more to the
availability choices to make not if there is freedom to make them.

If your description is to the core of a being, what is it that drives the
being, that takes us back to computer programming, are you wired
to do all you do? Then you have no choice at all, no will at all, you
are simply following your program, which I reject for reasons we
have already covered. We are responsible for our choices, we are
able to say yes or no to a choice, and we can turn away from a path
of life we are on if we ever get the desire to. That is our free moral
agency which I have talked about already.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]If there is a free will it must escape these forces. Visted suggested a 'ghost inside the machine' or what might be just as suitable is a 'soul' or something in the astral realms. All that matters is that there is no causality (for conveience I have used the solecism of "causality", I do acknowledge Quantum mechanics however this will not impairt my argu ...[text shortened]... et the desire to. That is our free moral
agency which I have talked about already.
Kelly

First of all, I aver that there is a will. All I am saying is that it can't be free.

"Why does it matter if there are forces at
play against the will of anyone? If they have forces attempting to
sway them one way or another, if they are free, they will still do as
they see fit, that is freedom. "

Yes, but go further, what makes the free will resist the forces "swaying" it one way or another. To me it must have a cause (and i see no reliable refutation). Soemthing must make it choose one or another.

"Then you have no choice at all, no will at all, you
are simply following your program. "

Yes, thats right. However, I also believe that this program can change (i.e. through learning).I dont understand why you shy away from this concept.

"We are responsible for our choices, we are
able to say yes or no to a choice, and we can turn away from a path
of life we are on if we ever get the desire to. "

Oh, i see, so our "desires" dictate our choices. According to you "we can turn from a path of life we are on we get the desire to". This is not freedom. Whether desire is biological or of some spiritual or inconcrete origin we are controlled by the vagaries and arbitrariness of something else (i.e.whatever desire comes from).

"That is our free moral
agency which I have talked about already. "

I see no difference in moral freedom. Speek to someone criminally insane. You'll soon find out that they're stuck like that. They will always commit the same crimes when free.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]If there is no causality then the result must be random (this is true for everything). Hence, free will must be random.

Yes, if by "free will" you mean a libertarian notion of free will. Your post underlines an inescapable fact -- namely, that the libertarian notion of free will is completely and utterly incoherent. This seems to be the notion ...[text shortened]... ns to be the case that the ultimate cause of the undertaken action is external to the agent.[/b]

The only type of free will that makes any sense at all is some form of compatibilism, or soft determinism, whereby the agent endorses the maxim of an undertaken action through sufficient internal reflection, even if it happens to be the case that the ultimate cause of the undertaken action is external to the agent.

Well, the thing is, I wouldn't describe that as free will. To me, all the person can possibly do is "endore the maxim of an understaken action..."

Originally posted by Conrau K
First of all, I aver that there is a will. All I am saying is that it can't be free.

"Why does it matter if there are forces at
play against the will of anyone? If they have forces attempting to
sway them one way or another, if they are free, they will still do as
they see fit, that is freedom. "

Yes, but go further, what makes the free will resis ...[text shortened]... hat they're stuck like that. They will always commit the same crimes when free.

As I see your whole argument, it boils down to first cause in the
choices we make. You want, it seems to say that we are not
free to make choices, to change our minds, or direct the paths
of our lives, yet at the same time say programming can change
through learning. Either you make your choices or you don't,
your knowledge can give insight, but that does not mean that
you will change your ways. The truth can set you free, but only
if you are willing to follow it, which again is an act of will.
Kelly

Originally posted by Conrau K
The only type of free will that makes any sense at all is some form of compatibilism, or soft determinism, whereby the agent endorses the maxim of an undertaken action through sufficient internal reflection, even if it happens to be the case that the ultimate cause of the undertaken action is external to the agent.

Well, the thing is, I wouldn't describe ...[text shortened]... will. To me, all the person can possibly do is "endore the maxim of an understaken action..."

Well, if your only notion of free will is libertarian, then you are correct in concluding that free will does not exist, as your thread name implies. But I think it is pretty clear that other (compatibilist) forms of free will exist, in the sense that they give rise to moral responsibility. Whether or not moral responsibility is accounted for is, in my mind, the only really useful topic concerning "freedom of the will". Otherwise, if you truly believe that free will does not exist, and therefore that moral responsibility is simply an illusion, then I would expect you to front a protest to set all convicted prisoners free, based on the claim that they are in no way morally responsible for their crimes. Have you started that project yet?

The point I am trying to make is the following: you are correct that most persons' notion of free will is incoherent. However, it is quite a stretch indeed to then say that free will (as in a mechanism that gives rise to moral responsibility for one's actions) does not exist. On the contrary, it just means that the only form of free will that is coherent is some form of compatibilism.

If on the other hand, with this thread you were just trying to point out that the libertarian notion of free will is rubbish, then I fully agree with you.

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I see your whole argument, it boils down to first cause in the
choices we make. You want, it seems to say that we are not
free to make choices, to change our minds, or direct the paths
of our lives, yet at the same time say programming can change
through learning. Either you make your choices or you don't,
your knowledge can give insight, but that d ...[text shortened]... set you free, but only
if you are willing to follow it, which again is an act of will.
Kelly

Heres an example:

I was recently going to buy a car. I went to a dealer. They had a selection of four cars I could afford. I contemplated each intently. After deliberating I chose a red one.

Did I make a choice?

According to you there were forces pulling this way and another for me to "choose" one of the cars, which I agree with. However, my choice was decided by my deliberation (like a computer) and my own prejudices. I do not believe a choice occured. One force prevailed over me to "choose". I also recently read of some psyshological study which indicated that it is better to let you subconscious make your decision in this example. Would a choice occur then either?

Here's another example:

In studying conscience and decision making in religion I learnt of a process of listing all the pros and cons of decision and then determine which is best.

I was recently pproached by a drug dealer. I considered taking the drugs. Pros: 1. they were tempting. 2. I was depressed and I wanted to be happy. Cons: It could ruin my life. Hence**, I decided against the drugs.

Did I make a choice?

** reasoning is subject to error and other external influences. So many people might "choose" the opposite decision.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, if your only notion of free will is libertarian, then you are correct in concluding that free will does not exist, as your thread name implies. But I think it is pretty clear that other (compatibilist) forms of free will exist, in the sense that they give rise to moral responsibility. Whether or not moral responsibility is accounted for is, in my ...[text shortened]... point out that the libertarian notion of free will is rubbish, then I fully agree with you.

I have no intention of pursuing your suggested "project". I honestly believe prison is conducive to rehabilitation. However, I believe that evryone affords
sympathy for their crimes and that is my project: dont judge others.

It is also why I dont accept the death penalty. The only people who do support are those who know they will never be in that chair or noose or whatever.

I dont exactly understand your compatibilist theory or atleast i fail to see it fully justified. However, to me it seem that if compatibilism is true, then the question becomes more like "when does free will exist".

Originally posted by Conrau K
Heres an example:

I was recently going to buy a car. I went to a dealer. They had a selection of four cars I could afford. I contemplated each intently. After deliberating I chose a red one.

Did I make a choice?

According to you there were forces pulling this way and another for me to "choose" one of the cars, which I agree with. However, my cho ...[text shortened]... error and other external influences. So many people might "choose" the opposite decision.

Yes you made choices, were you compelled to make a choice of those
four cars? No, but you did, you could have walked away, you could
have gone other places, you could have done many things, you made
a choice. You made the choice, not the guy giving you four cars to
select, you did made it. As far as drugs are concern there are people
who know when they do buy drugs, knowing it is going to cause harm
to their lives and family. They may want to quit, yet they seem to
just go on, and on ruining their lives and the lives of others. These
are still choices being made, logic and knowledge can play apart, but
it is always going to come down to 'will'.

With a computer, it does not use its own logic on anything, it moves
through a formula that we introduce into it by our programming, using
"if, then, else, or, = , = =, and so on. There isn't a "I like this
better than that" going on inside a computer, it is going to take the
greater than value if we tell it too, our logic not the computers is really
involved. Which is different that when we look at something and say
I like this better than that, we pick what we will.

You make a choice, it is you that we credit or blame.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes you made choices, were you compelled to make a choice of those
four cars? No, but you did, you could have walked away, you could
have gone other places, you could have done many things, you made
a choice. You made the choice, not the guy giving you four cars to
select, you did made it. As far as drugs are concern there are people
who know when they ...[text shortened]... hat, we pick what we will.

You make a choice, it is you that we credit or blame.
Kelly

No I did not make a choice! As i demonstrated my decision was based on logic and emotional attachment. No one "made me" choose it. However, I could not have done anything else. That would require something else, another impetus.I had no desire to go away. So i didn't. We are controlled by our deliberation, our prejudice and our desire.

Although, like Nemesio said, we dont have free will, but its so complex that we basically do.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No I did not make a choice! As i demonstrated my decision was based on logic and emotional attachment. No one "made me" choose it. However, I could not have done anything else. That would require something else, another impetus.I had no desire to go away. So i didn't. We are controlled by our deliberation, our prejudice and our desire.

Although, like Nemesio said, we dont have free will, but its so complex that we basically do.

I think I'll leave you to your thoughts. I don't think you see the
forest because of your complaints about all of those trees.
Kelly