Is free will really an illusion?

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I have a question regarding this. Go ahead and tell me how I am wrong on it if I really am wrong. I personally don't think free will is an illusion because if you were to look at an unconscious organism such as a plant, then its acts are fixed. They are fixed towards survival. For example, the plant takes in sunlight, absorbs water, and all other processes of the plant are never random and are never against its own survival. They are fixed towards the survival of the plant.

So the same thing should hold true for the brain. If our acts and choices are predetermined, then they too should be fixed towards our survival and towards the survival (helping) of others as well. But I could choose to mindlessly perform a bunch of random acts right now such as frailing my arms up in the air. As a matter of fact, I could choose right now to perform acts that go against my own survival and the survival of others.

For a brain to perform such acts would imply that the brain is malfunctioning just as how I could also say that the plant performing random acts and acts against its own survival is malfunctioning as well. But the brain is not malfunctioning. It might of very well been my awareness right now of such acts that lead my brain into performing them. But still, the question remains. Why would the brain even perform such acts in the first place?

It shouldn't. So the very fact that I did perform them implies that free will exists and is not an illusion.

 

[Sunstone]

Plants have no where near the capacity to learn from experience that humans do. We are not entirely guided by our genes, but also by our learning.

Besides which, instincts in humans and many other animals should not be confused with mere reflex. As Konrad Lorenz pointed out, there is an element of learning in instinctual behavior. And because of that, there's an element of flexibility.

 

[Maponos]

Well, I'm not sure if we can know for sure. I believe in fate, but I'm not sure if fate is decided with choices we make or if it's all predetermined.

 

[Mycroft]

Genes, to a degree, give us a propensity toward certain kinds of behaviour, but at the same time a lot of our behaviour is as the result of our experiences and influences throughout life as we go up. Human beings, like any other creature, are responding organisms. We respond to stimuli. If we get stung by a nettle, our brain remembers that nettle, and the next time we see it we keep clear of it (moreover: we warn others to do the same). But without being stung by the nettle or warned about it by someone else, we can't know to keep clear of it.

That's not to say that it's all predetermined. We can't know what stimuli we'll come into contact with, and the same stimuli wont produce the same results in different individuals. You could slap one girl, and she'll cry, you could slap another girl, and she'll kick you in the cobblers. The reaction to being slapped in the face would depend on all of the other stimuli they've had over their lives.

 

[EtuMalku]

I am of the mind that the true meaning behind 'free will' is not the ability to make decisions, but rather it should state; 'freedom from the will of another'
And Mankind has this ability despite the endless indoctrination of religion. Plants and animals are already free from the will of others, Mankind is the only organism that builds their own cages.

 

[Mycroft]

I am of the mind that the true meaning behind 'free will' is not the ability to make decisions, but rather it should state; 'freedom from the will of another'
And Mankind has this ability despite the endless indoctrination of religion. Plants and animals are already free from the will of others, Mankind is the only organism that builds their own cages.

But that's a false appropriation of the concept.

 

[EtuMalku]

But that's a false appropriation of the concept.

Then the concept is merely the ability to make decisions . . . which means nothing.

 

[Sleeppy]

Time is an illusion.. It might be better to start with that.

 

[Mycroft]

Then the concept is merely the ability to make decisions . . . which means nothing.

Who said it had to have a meaning?

 

[Mycroft]

Time is an illusion..

Lunchtime doubly so.

 

[EtuMalku]

Who said it had to have a meaning?

What on earth are you talking about? Words are used to create sentences which are used to convey meaning . . .
If Free Will simply means the ability to make decisions then I find the definition of Free Will to be useless.
Freedom from the Will of Another is IMO a much better definition.

When you find the phrase 'Free Will' in most religious context, you find for example angels having the ability to 'not' follow the Will of God, that is what is meant in that context as Free Will (freedom from the imposed Will of God) . . . when taken further, Free Will should indicate the liberation from any other imposed Will upon your self.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I have a question regarding this. Go ahead and tell me how I am wrong on it if I really am wrong. I personally don't think free will is an illusion because if you were to look at an unconscious organism such as a plant, then its acts are fixed. They are fixed towards survival. For example, the plant takes in sunlight, absorbs water, and all other processes of the plant are never random and are never against its own survival. They are fixed towards the survival of the plant.

So the same thing should hold true for the brain. If our acts and choices are predetermined, then they too should be fixed towards our survival and towards the survival (helping) of others as well. But I could choose to mindlessly perform a bunch of random acts right now such as frailing my arms up in the air. As a matter of fact, I could choose right now to perform acts that go against my own survival and the survival of others.

For a brain to perform such acts would imply that the brain is malfunctioning just as how I could also say that the plant performing random acts and acts against its own survival is malfunctioning as well. But the brain is not malfunctioning. It might of very well been my awareness right now of such acts that lead my brain into performing them. But still, the question remains. Why would the brain even perform such acts in the first place?

It shouldn't. So the very fact that I did perform them implies that free will exists and is not an illusion.

Are you implying that will, free or not, is a brain function?

 

[Covellite]

I really like your question. Free will is a key subject, maybe more important then any other.
When I was younger, I used to remind myself - I am not a tree, I can change things So, I really believe in a free will.
Many things in our life are coded, predetermined. On the other side, our soul, or call it true nature is not. If we live following our instincts only, our life would be mostly predetermined. If we choose to follow our true nature, no matter if it has no solid ground and make us "irrational", then we can be creators of most important parts of our life.
I remember how hard for me was to believe in supernatural things, like astral projection, past life, spirit world, but I started to practice something I can call now "free will". I was shocked when I could see everything around me, with my eyes closed. I started to change the direction of my life, without knowing that. It's not easy, not something you can achieve in a days, weeks... It takes years, decades. Past life are important, too. Non-material souls can do a great job for you. You can become what you want to be.
That's what I know, even no way to prove it.
Thank you

 

[Mycroft]

What on earth are you talking about? Words are used to create sentences which are used to convey meaning . . .
If Free Will simply means the ability to make decisions then I find the definition of Free Will to be useless.
Freedom from the Will of Another is IMO a much better definition.

When you find the phrase 'Free Will' in most religious context, you find for example angels having the ability to 'not' follow the Will of God, that is what is meant in that context as Free Will (freedom from the imposed Will of God) . . . when taken further, Free Will should indicate the liberation from any other imposed Will upon your self.

But the word 'Free Will' isn't useless. Just useless to you because it doesn't conform to what you think it should mean.

 

[jeager106]

Isn't the freedom to choose one element of free will?
I think a LARGE and IMPORTANT element of free will.
"Free Will" means to me the ability (freedom) to make choices for myself.


from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ ( not my words. copy & paste)
( I ain't that smart! :>) )

“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility.

 

[Deidre]

I've been reading about determinism, and there are arguments that are rather convincing. One of them being that our choices are only our choices because of the external circumstances that have led us to make or desire those choices. I find that fascinating. For example, if someone grows up in an abusive household let's say, that person may make a choice to never treat his/her own children in the same way, or he/she may make bad choices, and be abusive based on what he/she witnessed and experienced during childhood. Either choice can be said to have stemmed from the external circumstances that shaped his/her childhood. I've always been a believer in that our lives are often the sum total of our choices, but having read some of these new philosophical viewpoints on determinism, I'm not so sure.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I've been reading about determinism, and there are arguments that are rather convincing. One of them being that our choices are only our choices because of the external circumstances that have led us to make or desire those choices. I find that fascinating. For example, if someone grows up in an abusive household let's say, that person may make a choice to never treat his/her own children in the same way, or he/she may make bad choices, and be abusive based on what he/she witnessed and experienced during childhood. Either choice can be said to have stemmed from the external circumstances that shaped his/her childhood. I've always been a believer in that our lives are often the sum total of our choices, but having read some of these new philosophical viewpoints on determinism, I'm not so sure.

Let me ask you something if I may; Your nose itches. Your hand goes to your nose and scratches it. What part of you made that decision to scratch or not to scratch?

 

[Deidre]

Let me ask you something if I may; Your nose itches. Your hand goes to your nose and scratches it. What part of you made that decision to scratch or not to scratch?

If it didn't itch, you wouldn't ''need'' to make the choice to scratch it. lol It's a different way to view it, but maybe it's not entirely wrong, the premise behind determinism?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If it didn't itch, you wouldn't ''need'' to make the choice to scratch it. lol It's a different way to view it, but maybe it's not entirely wrong, the premise behind determinism?

I'm not sure you answered the question.

 

[Deidre]

I'm not sure you answered the question.

I'm not sure it's answerable with a right or wrong answer...is why I answered as I did.