Free will has never been demonstrated to exist

[Milton Platt]

I have made this example before (years ago).

Our free will is a choice between a set outcome. We do not have as much free will as we think, but we do have more than we think too.

If at a farm of 1000 cows one of them drops dead other cows won't take much notice of it and continue grazing/eating as though nothing happened. They do not have free will, they are designed to simply be cows and serve humans as food/source of food.

Now in the same scenario we have about 1000 humans at a shopping centre, if a person dies we will all go out of our way and inquire as to what happened, how it happened and to whom it happened.

A simple answer but I hope the message gets across the ocean.

This does not in any way demonstrate free will. First, not all of the people in the mall would inquire about the death. There would be a wide variety of responses, and with some, no response at all.

But that aside, each of those responses happened because of each individual's genetics, our upbringing, our individual experiences during our lifetime, etc. The reaction to the death in the mall would in some way be unique to every individual, and yet, those responses would happen due to the factors mentioned above. So, in reality, no free will. Everything we do is shaped by outside influences.

 

[Skwim]

Free will, interestingly enough, has never been demonstrated not to exist, either.

From five years ago

In the last month or so there's been an increased interest in free will.
"Defining Free Will" by Penumbra

"God and his free will" by Skwim

"Do Atheists believe in free-will?" by SPLogan

"Freewill or Fate" by The Sum of Awe

"Free Will? Where?" by ejay286

This interest has usually centered around the affirmation of free will 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." People have either failed to let others know what they had in mind when they use them, or have provided definitions that got mired in misunderstandings and confusion. Even when directly asked to define these terms people have skirted the request, and have proceeded to side topics, leaving the issue of free will no more resolved than before. So what's going on here?

As I see it, free will is important to many because without it would mean each of is nothing more than Robbie the Robot, 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 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 at all what the issue of free will is about. 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.

Here's how I see it.
There are only two ways actions 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, 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 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. We HAD to do what we did. 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 . . . .



This, then, is my argument---a bit shortened to keep it brief---against free will as it stands in opposition to determinism.​

source

 

[muhammad_isa]

...
I think denial that anyone can able to act willfully--the denial of free will--is something that is promoted because it makes people feel better about their bad behavior.

You're probably right..
Sociologists can tell us that our backgrounds are not really under our control .. eg. we don't choose our parents
Nevertheless, if we purposely drive a car in a dangerous manner and injure someone, quite rightly we are held to account for it .. most reasonable people would therefore conclude that we really DO make decisions and we are not (totally) possessed by other forces.

 

[Willamena]

What if something or someone else did it and they are just taking the credit?

I thought we were to address free will genuinely.

My bad.

 

[Sunstone]

It has always confused me that determinism is considered the "rational" position. Denying free-will not only requires you to ignore every single person's personal experience, but also requires you to accept a completely unproven hypothesis. How is that rational?

Actually, I've heard the field of neuroscience is producing substantial evidence these days that directly and indirectly contradicts the notion of free will, and has been doing so for at least a couple of decades. I haven't read about most of the evidence, but what little I've read has struck me as fascinating. So far as I've heard, the evidence consistently points in the direction of there being little or no free will. But don't take my word for it. Google it yourself.

 

[idav]

I gave an example in the OP. Furthermore the fact that its unfalsifiable reflects the weakness of using free will in a religious debate. That puts it in the land of fairies and the celestial teapot. Therefore people shouldn't assume they have free will or use it to justify an argument.

Well determinism is falsifiable and that at least is a start.

 

[atanu]

Actually, I've heard the field of neuroscience is producing substantial evidence these days that directly and indirectly contradicts the notion of free will, and has been doing so for at least a couple of decades. I haven't read about most of the evidence, but what little I've read has struck me as fascinating. So far as I've heard, the evidence consistently points in the direction of there being little or no free will. But don't take my word for it. Google it yourself.

I can never understand this. If there is no free will then how what we know is not pre-determined?

 

[idav]

Those evidences of neoroscience


I can never understand this. If there is no free will then how what we know is not pre-determined?

No free will = predetermined as in determined by natural course of Newtonian physics.

 

[Falvlun]

Actually, I've heard the field of neuroscience is producing substantial evidence these days that directly and indirectly contradicts the notion of free will, and has been doing so for at least a couple of decades. I haven't read about most of the evidence, but what little I've read has struck me as fascinating. So far as I've heard, the evidence consistently points in the direction of there being little or no free will. But don't take my word for it. Google it yourself.

From what I've read, there's no consensus as to the implications of these experiments.

Neuroscience of free-will

 

[atanu]

From what I've read, there's no consensus as to the implications of these experiments.

Neuroscience of free-will

In my opinion, the question to ask first is "Freewill for whom"? Many philosophers ask us to "Know Thyself". But we assume self to be the manifested form and chug along.

 

[Nous]

So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless the causes 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. We HAD to do what we did. 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 . . . .



This, then, is my argument---a bit shortened to keep it brief---against free will as it stands in opposition to determinism.​

source

So purely on the basis of fiat you eliminate the possibility of a person being able to will his/her acts?

By what method did you willfully determine that radioactive decay of individual atoms is deterministic?

 

[DeepShadow]

This is a silly point. The color green doesn't exist period; its an interpretation from your mind based on either the RGB values of the pixels in your computer screen, or an extrapolation of the frequency from the electromagnetic radiation hitting your eye. Basically the color is an illusion. You might think free will might be a viable part of your experience, but just like the color green, that is an illusion.

By that logic, the list of things that don't exist could be expanded to include not just all colors, but all sensations and perceptions (just interpretations of the mind), all language, locations in space and time, all abstractions such as love, happiness, right, wrong, joy, pain...even the abstractions of "demonstration" and "existence" that you need to make your original statement. Even beyond that, the individual self is merely an illusion over a composite construct formed from a chorus of neurological feedback loops. So the "you" that wrote the OP was an illusion, as is each of the other individual "selves" that is replying, including "me."

But references to colors such as green are accepted in both courts of law and scientific laboratories for good reason: they are common enough experiences as to be axiomatic references, despite the fact that they are constructs. I'd love to hear someone try to argue in a court of law that a witness's testimony was nonsense because color is not a viable part of human experience.

Free will is the same way. It may be a construct, but that's not the same as saying it "does not exist." If you are really going to argue that anything that is a composite/construct/illusion does not actually exist, you'll have to do so without any language, formal logic/reasoning, sensation, or self references. Good luck with that. "I" will be "here" "waiting" for "you" to "try."

 

[Thief]

and the next 'person' is having someone twisting his arm....to make another post

oh.....that's right....typing is better with two hands.....

maybe a threat.....
gun to the head.....maybe
knife to throat....maybe

oh!.....terrorists make us do this!
that might be it!

no wait....this is a religious forum

the devil makes us do it

 

[GoodbyeDave]

There are many things that have not been proved to exist because you don't need to prove them. There are certain things that are just obvious, such as
> Things don't just happen for no reason at all
> Memory produces true beliefs about past events
> Perceptual experience relates to external objects
> I have some power over my decisions and my actions

The points by which we can identify self-evident beliefs are
> People only deny them consciously. Some-one who claims to believe that we have no free-will then writes a book or internet post trying to those who believe we do to change their minds: i.e. to exercise their free-will!
> One cannot see what evidence or argument that could be produced to prove them, as Wittgenstein wrote in his book On Certainty.
> They are only questioned by those who have been reading or doing philosophy. The normal reaction to the denial of the material world, free-will, the existence of other people, etc, is laughter, not argument.

 

[DeepShadow]

There are many things that have not been proved to exist because you don't need to prove them. There are certain things that are just obvious, such as
> Things don't just happen for no reason at all
> Memory produces true beliefs about past events
> Perceptual experience relates to external objects
> I have some power over my decisions and my actions

The points by which we can identify self-evident beliefs are
> People only deny them consciously. Some-one who claims to believe that we have no free-will then writes a book or internet post trying to those who believe we do to change their minds: i.e. to exercise their free-will!
> One cannot see what evidence or argument that could be produced to prove them, as Wittgenstein wrote in his book On Certainty.
> They are only questioned by those who have been reading or doing philosophy. The normal reaction to the denial of the material world, free-will, the existence of other people, etc, is laughter, not argument.

Exactly!