Free will deniers

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's under my control but there is no external causal factor.
No one else made the decision. There was no want or desire influencing which I decided on.
I made the decision without weighing whether any option would be better than the other.

Prior to deciding, any of the 3 possibilities could have been selected.

I could do this over and over again each time making a different select or the same one.
All starting conditions being the same.

The problem is that your non-external causal factor ends up being ex nihilo.
How? Because if you check the chain of cause and effect back through time, you are in effect caused by something not you. I.e. the starting cell of you, is not you, but is the cause of you. So you are claiming that along the chain of cause and effect as not you it caused you, for which you are now detached from all the cause and effect in your body, that is not you and you are magically your own cause coming out of nothing.

In effect you are not connected to the chain of cause and effect in nature as through the biology of the replication of the fittest genes and how that cause plays out as an effect in an organism.

 

[Heyo]

Very interesting, I will watch it later, this evening, when I have time.

But...you know...I had a philosophy teacher, in high school that used to talk about Kant as her deity and guide.
And Kant used to say

View attachment 78296

Kant is a child of his time. (Well, he's more the teacher and creator of his time.)
The Enlightenment is all about thinking for oneself and making decisions. A notion of free will goes well with such a philosophy. I'm a fan of Kant and the Enlightenment myself. I'd even say that the illusion of free will is useful and that we should live our lives as if we (and others) had free will.
But just it being useful and desirable doesn't change the fact that there is no step in the decision making process in the brain where freedom plays a role. It is all just predetermination or quantum randomness.
Reality sucks - but it is still better to understand it and deal with it than living in a dream world.

 

[Nakosis]

The problem is that your non-external causal factor ends up being ex nihilo.
How? Because if you check the chain of cause and effect back through time, you are in effect caused by something not you. I.e. the starting cell of you, is not you, but is the cause of you. So you are claiming that along the chain of cause and effect as not you it caused you, for which you are now detached from all the cause and effect in your body, that is not you and you are magically your own cause coming out of nothing.

In effect you are not connected to the chain of cause and effect in nature as through the biology of the replication of the fittest genes and how that cause plays out as an effect in an organism.

Yes, I look at it differently.
Why, because I can.
I can imagine any past, present or future that has no connection to actual past events.
Then I can act from what I have imagined instead of from any actual events.

IOW, I create the reality I act from which need not have any direct causal chain from the actual reality that created me.

So the brain has the ability to accept the truth of whatever reality it decides to create which makes it the God of its own reality giving it the ability to create something from nothing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I look at it differently.
Why, because I can.
I can imagine any past, present or future that has no connection to actual past events.
Then I can act from what I have imagined instead of from any actual events.

IOW, I create the reality I act from which need not have any direct causal chain from the actual reality that created me.

So the brain has the ability to accept the truth of whatever reality it decides to create which makes it the God of its own reality giving it the ability to create something from nothing.

Yeah, that is the Thomas Theorem in effect. Look it up if you have to.

 

[Nakosis]

How does one make a random decision?

Yes the word "random" seems to confuse people so lets not use it.

Actually it wasn't a random decision since a random decision would mean that anything could possibly happen. Like I could cut off my arm or any almost infinite number of other events could possibly occur that could happen to physically happen.

It is a specific decision among only three possibilities which I chose to allow.

So I simply will myself to pick one of three possible actions I am allowing myself to pick from. With no desire or motivation to pick one over the other.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, that is the Thomas Theorem in effect. Look it up if you have to.

Thanks for putting a name to it.
It's not the first time I've come to find I am not alone in my thinking.
I see that others have come to similar conclusion giving it different names.
I particularly like the Tinkerbell Effect.

 

[Nakosis]

I haven't followed this thread but I stumbled over a video that fits the title and may be interesting to the discussion:

Interesting,

She talks about emergent properties. So I see the ability of the brain to imagine any past present or future as an emergent property. IOW not determined by its constituent parts. Including memories and physical properties. Free will, my opinion, not hers, becomes irreducible. Which she calls strong emergence which she says is possible but would require infinite complexity which IMO, comes from the ability of the brain to imagine any number of realities without any regards to the physical we know.

However she does say she herself doesn't believe in free will because she feels it would be creepy if something other than determinism affected the decisions of her brain. Well, we wouldn't want her to feel creepy would we?

 

[Heyo]

However she does say she herself doesn't believe in free will because she feels it would be creepy if something other than determinism affected the decisions of her brain. Well, we wouldn't want her to feel creepy would we?

It is basically what the dualists believe. There is an entity outside of our reality that controls our thoughts.
I like to explain it using the simulation hypothesis (but it isn't a simulation anymore). In a simulation, we are all programs but there is a similar hypothesis which is the game (or matrix) hypothesis. In that world, a character can be played by such an external entity.
In theological terms, a game (matrix) is a simulation + souls.

 

[Nakosis]

It is basically what the dualists believe. There is an entity outside of our reality that controls our thoughts.
I like to explain it using the simulation hypothesis (but it isn't a simulation anymore). In a simulation, we are all programs but there is a similar hypothesis which is the game (or matrix) hypothesis. In that world, a character can be played by such an external entity.
In theological terms, a game (matrix) is a simulation + souls.

Yes she talks about this idea referring to Kant but asks how something which is non-physical can effect the physical world.
I Kant disagree with her on that being a non-dualist myself.

I prefer seeing free will as an emergent property.

 

[Estro Felino]

Kant is a child of his time. (Well, he's more the teacher and creator of his time.)
The Enlightenment is all about thinking for oneself and making decisions. A notion of free will goes well with such a philosophy. I'm a fan of Kant and the Enlightenment myself. I'd even say that the illusion of free will is useful and that we should live our lives as if we (and others) had free will.
But just it being useful and desirable doesn't change the fact that there is no step in the decision making process in the brain where freedom plays a role. It is all just predetermination or quantum randomness.
Reality sucks - but it is still better to understand it and deal with it than living in a dream world.

Very interesting. But the point of this thread is that there is the tendency to apply a Doppelmoral on others and ourselves.
Double standards: meaning that whatever we do, we think it's the reflection of something deterministic and inevitable.

Whereas what others do is the reflection of their free will...so the others need to be held accountable for their evil deeds.

For instance, since you believe free will doesn't exist and is just a logical expedient, you should affirm (in order to be coherent and logical) that Putin is not to be held accountable for the Ukrainian war.
Since it's just the result of a chain of events (determinism).

So...tell me. Is Putin to be held accountable or not? Does he have free will?

 

[Heyo]

So...tell me. Is Putin to be held accountable or not? Does he have free will?

He doesn't have free will. And neither do we. Thus, holding him accountable is not what we do out of free volition. We must hold him accountable.

 

[Estro Felino]

He doesn't have free will. And neither do we. Thus, holding him accountable is not what we do out of free volition. We must hold him accountable.

It's a contradiction.
If he doesn't have freedom to decide, why should he be held accountable?

It doesn't add up.
Immanuel Kant would have said this claim is unvernünftig.

 

[Estro Felino]

It is basically what the dualists believe. There is an entity outside of our reality that controls our thoughts.
I like to explain it using the simulation hypothesis (but it isn't a simulation anymore). In a simulation, we are all programs but there is a similar hypothesis which is the game (or matrix) hypothesis. In that world, a character can be played by such an external entity.
In theological terms, a game (matrix) is a simulation + souls.

Once at school I wrote an essay about Nietzsche's sentence:
Man is a rope stretched between the beast and the Übermensch. A rope above the abyss.

How would you interpret this philosophical principle? What did Nietzsche mean?

 

[Heyo]

It's a contradiction.
If he doesn't have freedom to decide, why should he be held accountable?

It doesn't add up.
Immanuel Kant would have said this claim is unvernünftig.

It seems contradictory but it is perfectly valid. Putin acted according to his bellicose nature, we act according to our righteous nature. All happens in a trigger -> reaction scheme. Evolution has fitted us with both competing and cooperating urges. Which one prevails depends on the circumstances (including all our experiences).

But I have to give it to you and to @Nakosis especially. We seem to have free will. This seemingly free will is, as @Nakosis mentioned, an emergent property. I call that "free choice" because it is not philosophical free will. We do have free choice, an emergent property of our complex brain. It is for all practical purposes the same as free will. It is what makes us responsible for our actions (at least those of sufficient age, sanity and sobriety).
Only when we try to dissect the free choice, we see that we can't find the freedom in it. That is the moment when we have to accept that it is an illusion - instead of "concluding" that there must be an external "soul" that injects the freedom.

 

[Estro Felino]

It seems contradictory but it is perfectly valid. Putin acted according to his bellicose nature, we act according to our righteous nature. All happens in a trigger -> reaction scheme. Evolution has fitted us with both competing and cooperating urges. Which one prevails depends on the circumstances (including all our experiences).

But I have to give it to you and to @Nakosis especially. We seem to have free will. This seemingly free will is, as @Nakosis mentioned, an emergent property. I call that "free choice" because it is not philosophical free will. We do have free choice, an emergent property of our complex brain. It is for all practical purposes the same as free will. It is what makes us responsible for our actions (at least those of sufficient age, sanity and sobriety).
Only when we try to dissect the free choice, we see that we can't find the freedom in it. That is the moment when we have to accept that it is an illusion - instead of "concluding" that there must be an external "soul" that injects the freedom.

I like this reasoning very much.
Very profound. But I gave an answer by saying that other people enslave us, so deprive us of our freedom, and that gives us the illusion that our will is not free.
But those people use their free will to do that. They deprive us of something they have.

In an Utopian world, there is cooperation and not enslavement. They are all free.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, I look at it differently.
Why, because I can.
I can imagine any past, present or future that has no connection to actual past events.
Then I can act from what I have imagined instead of from any actual events.

IOW, I create the reality I act from which need not have any direct causal chain from the actual reality that created me.

So the brain has the ability to accept the truth of whatever reality it decides to create which makes it the God of its own reality giving it the ability to create something from nothing.

The problem is that the very act of imagining something is either caused by something else in the causal chain or spontaneously happened by itself, and in both cases you are not under control.

 

[Koldo]

I like this reasoning very much.
Very profound. But I gave an answer by saying that other people enslave us, so deprive us of our freedom, and that gives us the illusion that our will is not free.
But those people use their free will to do that. They deprive us of something they have.

In an Utopian world, there is cooperation and not enslavement. They are all free.

You say you liked his reasoning very much, and yet what follows is a text that makes it obvious you didn't understand what he said...

 

[Estro Felino]

You say you liked his reasoning very much, and yet what follows is a text that makes it obvious you didn't understand what he said...

I don't understand what you say, whenever you speak of free will.
Speak in Portuguese, then...is it your mother tongue, right?

 

[Nakosis]

The problem is that the very act of imagining something is either caused by something else in the causal chain or spontaneously happened by itself, and in both cases you are not under control.

The act of imagining is caused by the brain. Which is me. So anything internal to the casual agent is not external causation. This includes memories, imaginations, feelings, desires. So as long as the causation comes internally from the brain, I consider it as being willed from the casual agent.

The problem I think is you limit the casual agent to only the part of the brain which is consciously aware. So if you are not casually aware/conscious of it then you are not being at cause. I think that is where most philosophers run into problems to is they limit the casual agent to only the "conscious self".

So while you may not be consciously under control the brain is. Which rightly should be taken in its entirety as being the casual agent.

The very act of limiting the casual agent to only the part of the brain which is consciously aware, which is only a small fraction of the brain, cuts off the actual causality the brain is capable of.

Your are looking for causality were it is not and say you see none.

Free will only requires that the brain can choose between alternate courses of action without the choice being made is influenced by and external, external from the brain, cause.

So unless you can show what cause, external to the brain, influenced my choice with what to do with my arm, you haven't yet countered my argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

What I'm proposing is that personal preference isn't a facet of free will but likely something bestowed upon us.

I believe that what we choose is based upon our personal preferences. Below is the definition of free will I wrote up:

Free will is simply the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these can be considered causes or reasons why we choose one thing or another.

How free our choices are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints such as ability and opportunity but we have volition as otherwise we could not choose anything.