Free will does not exist!

Originally posted by Conrau K
I agree with Coletti's "psychological illusion." A consequence of their being no free will, is that any experience of it (in the sense one believes it is an experience of it) must be an illusion. However i am not certain of deliberation is an illusion. A computer may evaluate a chess diagram and then subsequently predict who will win. However, although it d ...[text shortened]... k is what has really offended people.

Yes, then i believe you have summed up so far.

Are you saying that choice must follow the desire of the moment?
Restraint, repentance these are not words that describe a favorable
fish smell, but a choice to act according to something other than
one's own desires at the moment. More times than not because of
some standard of right and wrong which doesn’t line up with a
quick easy way for gain, pleasure, or power some forgo the
favorable fish smell to make a choice strictly out of the will to
behave a specific way. Actually making a choice to do the ‘right’
thing in spite of the outcome is a clear indicator that free will is
alive and well. If there were no free will, would anyone ever
return a found wallet with all the money in it, knowing they could
keep it and no one would know?
Kelly

Originally posted by Nemesio
Conrau K,
I've been giving a great deal of thought to your thesis -- that free
will does not exist -- and have some thoughts, but first I have to
ask you a question: do you feel that consciousness exists,
in particular, self-awareness?

Be careful how you answer this, because I want you to note that
both of these things are the produc ...[text shortened]... er you
give, could you give a little elaboration on why you feel that way?

Thanks,
Nemesio

I believe concsiousness exists. I also believe this is chemical. I believe this because drugs can interfere with conciousness to a level in which it can distorted and lost. Hence, because drugs are chemical, consciousness must be too. Does self-awareness exist? yes, I believe that. I should think self-awareness is the only thing i can truly be certain of even if all my other arguments are demonstrated as implausible.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Are you saying that choice must follow the desire of the moment?
Restraint, repentance these are not words that describe a favorable
fish smell, but a choice to act according to something other than
one's own desires at the moment. More times than not because of
some standard of right and wrong which doesn’t line up with a
quick easy way for gain, plea ...[text shortened]... ound wallet with all the money in it, knowing they could
keep it and no one would know?
Kelly

I think that you are hypeocritically making assumptions (remeber you accused me of this). I am not saying "choice" must follow from the desire of the moments. I don't even think choice occurs. The fish example was just an instance to explain the deliberation process whereby an illusionary chioce occurs. Standars of right and wrong can be ingrained into the consciousness (think of brainwashing, conditioning). I believe evolution can provide another valid explanation of this phenomenon (though i doubt you'll like it)

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You espouse a position that denies free will.

Do you do this in accordance with or contrary to your perceptual experiences?

That is, do you perceive that you make choices, while intellectually believing that those choices are illusions? Or do you actually perceive that you have no free will?

As for me, I perceive that I have free will. The ...[text shortened]... an illusion" theories, what distinguishes free will from others that you would reject?

That is, do you perceive that you make choices, while intellectually believing that those choices are illusions? Or do you actually perceive that you have no free will?


I perceive that i have free will in the same way i perceive that through a bent mirror i am really fat and have a grossly exaggerated head shaped (which from last time i looked in the mirror would not be an accurate description.). But intellectually i reason that free will cannot exist. I dont understand how this is epistemically unjustifiable. I experience illusions all the time. Your analogies are rather weak, and if they aren't i am offended that my arguments have so little logic as to be compared to "not eating because my perception is an illusion". Perception is not an illusion. However the perception of free will is an illusion. Choce is an illusion, as well however this does not mean that consciousness is an illusion (a conclusion i suspect was inherent in your argument).

Originally posted by Conrau K
I believe concsiousness exists. I also believe this is chemical. I believe this because drugs can interfere with conciousness to a level in which it can distorted and lost. Hence, because drugs are chemical, consciousness must be too. Does self-awareness exist? yes, I believe that. I should think self-awareness is the only thing i can truly be certain of even if all my other arguments are demonstrated as implausible.

That consciousness is *causally dependent* on brain chemisty does not imply that consciousness *is* brain chemistry.

That the movement of a car is *causally dependent* on fuel does not imply that the movementof the car *is* fuel, does it?

Indeed, if Y is causally dependent upon X, then Y cannot be the same thing as X, because that would be equivalent to saying X is causally dependent upon X, or that Y was casually dependent on Y. Hence, it would appear that if Y is causally dependent upon X, then Y CANNOT be X.

Which rather vitiates your argument.

I would say that, formally speaking, your error is to confuse causal reduction with ontological reduction.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I believe concsiousness exists. I also believe this is chemical. I believe this because drugs can interfere with conciousness to a level in which it can distorted and lost. Hence, because drugs are chemical, consciousness must be too. Does self-awareness exist? yes, I believe that. I should think self-awareness is the only thing i can truly be certain of even if all my other arguments are demonstrated as implausible.

I don't believe consciousness is a chemical, I do believe drugs can
interfere with it, but they can interfere with a lot of things. Being
able to interfere only means they occupy the same space, just as
fire can interfere with a tree doesn't mean fire is made of wood.
Kelly

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think that you are hypeocritically making assumptions (remeber you accused me of this). I am not saying "choice" must follow from the desire of the moments. I don't even think choice occurs. The fish example was just an instance to explain the deliberation process whereby an illusionary chioce occurs. Standars of right and wrong can be ingrained into the ...[text shortened]... ion can provide another valid explanation of this phenomenon (though i doubt you'll like it)

My concern is only 'will' at the moment, and free will to be more
precise. The universe or the environment is filled with things that
push and pull on us, just as they push and pull upon animals, upon
creatures great and small, it is what it is, so how do we look at
will? Evolutions only part in this discussion would be limited to just
those that believe we are nothing more than our physical makeup,
which I reject as you know.

We can be brainwashed, I agree and what one calls brainwashing
another can call it simply training, or guidance, instruction, moral
training, and so on; it will be a matter of syntax. Sitting in front of
a TV set watching the Super bowl (my poor Bears) and watching
the commercials is a matter introducing favorable feeling towards
some product, people dressing to impress is the same act, just
with different motivations. The attempts are the same, make this
fish smell the favorable one to the palate of the individual they are
attempting to impress, seduce, or entice.

The will is part of our very make up; it is the guidance system of
our lives, it reflects all that is within each individual, within the
animal kingdom (I do not count mankind as an animal) they act
upon instinct for the most part but choices such as they are still
there, go this way or that.

With people, we are not just left with our instinct and we can,
change our ways simply out of desire, we can stop smoking where
the desire to smoke may be incredibly difficult to over come, we
can stop doing drugs; we can stop resisting the neighbor’s wife who
is coming on to us, we can act as we choose, we behave as we will.
Our will is as much of our person as our ears and nose, how we
move about the day reveals what is within us. To see someone
spew out hateful speech, to slap another’s face in anger over
something small, to steal something small or big given the
opportunity that they think they can get away with it, is revealing
to what is inside of that person, a window into the heart or soul
of that person.

As far as how free it is, depends, some willingly bind themselves
to all manner of things, where they are caught up in. What they fill
themselves with in their lives be it drugs, alcohol, sports, collecting
nick knacks, sex, games, food and so on can take over a life. Being
able to bind yourself or to be set free of something that you decide
is against your best interest is acting on will. Attempting to get set
free and being unable to is a sign where the will of a person is
defeated by whatever is binding them, the struggle is still there
the will in action.
Kelly

Originally posted by Conrau K
Your analogies are rather weak, and if they aren't i am offended that my arguments have so little logic as to be compared to "not eating because my perception is an illusion".

Don't blame me. I didn't have the capacity to choose to construct a stronger analogy, nor the capacity to choose to refrain from making such an offensive post.

In fact, I sense that I'm about to call you a bonehead for taking such a ridiculous stance on free will, and I fear that I don't have capacity to choose to refrain from this course of action.

You are a bonehead.

Sorry, but it wasn't my choice to call you that.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Don't blame me. I didn't have the capacity to choose to construct a stronger analogy, nor the capacity to choose to refrain from making such an offensive post.

In fact, I sense that I'm about to call you a bonehead for taking such a ridiculous stance on free will, and I fear that I don't have capacity to choose to refrain from this course of action.

You are a bonehead.

Sorry, but it wasn't my choice to call you that.

Even if he can't help himself, on grounds he professes not to accept, from blaming you for calling him a bonehead, does that constitute an argument against determinism?

Maybe his brain chemistry might cause him irrationally blame you, and cause him to assert a philosophical belief inconsistent with this spontaneous attitude towards you. Does that suggest that free will is true?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Even if he can't help himself, on grounds he professes not to accept, from blaming you for calling him a bonehead, does that constitute an argument against determinism?

No. It constitutes an illustration that belief in determinism and admonishing others for their actions together are inconsistent. He needs to choose, or his predistination needs to dictate, which one he wants, for he cannot have both in a logically consistent manner.

To accept a belief in determinism is to immediately accept that it is futile to attempt to convince others that your belief is correct, and to accept that others cannot help but to ridicule you.

It also makes one look like a bonehead.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No. It constitutes an illustration that belief in determinism and admonishing others for their actions together are inconsistent. He needs to choose, or his predistination needs to dictate, which one he wants, for he cannot have both in a logically consistent manner.

To accept a belief in determinism is to immediately accept that it is futile to ...[text shortened]... o accept that others cannot help but to ridicule you.

It also makes one look like a bonehead.

Accepted.

But can't a causally determined attempt to convince others that your belief in determinism is correct nonetheless succeed? And if it can, is that attempt really futile? How can an attempt simultaneously succeed and be futile?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Accepted.

But can't a causally determined attempt to convince others that your belief in determinism is correct nonetheless succeed? And if it can, is that attempt really futile? How can an attempt simultaneously succeed and be futile?

It really can't be an attempt at all. If I hit the cue ball with my cue, it doesn't attempt to knock the 8 ball in.

Of course, the cue ball doesn't suffer or believe that it suffers the illusion that it is making such an attempt. The originator of this thread, however, does believe that he is suffering under such an illusion.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I believe concsiousness exists. I also believe this is chemical. I believe this because drugs can interfere with conciousness to a level in which it can distorted and lost. Hence, because drugs are chemical, consciousness must be too. Does self-awareness exist? yes, I believe that. I should think self-awareness is the only thing i can truly be certain of even if all my other arguments are demonstrated as implausible.

Consciousness -- which is created by chemicals -- is something that
affects the decisions we make -- which are governed by chemicals.

I would argue that, once consciousness is achieved, free will (or at
least constrained choice, as articulated by Vistesd) comes into existence.

That is, because consciousness affects the chemicals that result in
the actions we take, it goes from the dog's wagging its tail to the tail's
wagging the dog.

I'm inclined to think of theories of Artificial Intelligence; invariably,
a person will determine that a machine has AI when it recognizes itself
in some way. Recognizing one's self seems to be tied to moving from
reflex/instinct into chosen courses of action and free will.

I'm just sort of airing this out, and would like your opinion.

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
It really can't be an attempt at all. If I hit the cue ball with my cue, it doesn't attempt to knock the 8 ball in.

Of course, the cue ball doesn't suffer or believe that it suffers the illusion that it is making such an attempt. The originator of this thread, however, does believe that he is suffering under such an illusion.

I take your point.

I only wish my cue ball did try harder...

Originally posted by Nemesio
Consciousness -- which is created by chemicals -- is something that
affects the decisions we make -- which are governed by chemicals.

I would argue that, once consciousness is achieved, free will (or at
least constrained choice, as articulated by Vistesd) comes into existence.

That is, because consciousness affects the chemicals that result in
the a ...[text shortened]... and free will.

I'm just sort of airing this out, and would like your opinion.

Nemesio

If the chemicals cause consciousness, and consciousness affects chemicals, isn't consciousness really just a route whereby chemicals indirectly affect chemicals?

As a rule, it's very hard to refute epiphenomenalism. However, it's also very hard to believe in it.